A.M. No. P-99-1308, May 4, 2000
Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., RTC, Maasin, Southern Leyte, complainant, vs. Sofronio S. Manatad, Interpreter, MCTC, Malitbog-Tomas Oppus-Bontoc, Southern Leyte, respondent.

FACTS

Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr. charged respondent Sofronio S. Manatad, a Court Interpreter, with gross neglect of duty and frequent unauthorized absences. The complaint alleged that for 1996, Manatad incurred 109 days of absence without leave according to the court’s official logbook, a figure starkly inconsistent with the 59.5 days reflected in his own Daily Time Records (DTRs). The complainant averred that Manatad failed to report for duty for a week in July 1997 without explanation and noted this was his second administrative offense, having been previously fined for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
In his defense, Manatad claimed his approved leave applications had mysteriously vanished and that he had filed a sick leave. He alleged the charges were fabricated by envious colleagues and a clerk with a personal grudge. He also protested that he was being singled out, as other staff members’ DTRs similarly did not match the logbook but were not administratively charged.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sofronio S. Manatad is administratively liable for habitual absenteeism and neglect of duty.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Judge, which held the official logbook of attendance, regularly maintained and initialed by court personnel including the judge, to be far more credible and reliable than the respondent’s self-serving DTRs. The investigation conclusively established that Manatad incurred 109 days of unauthorized absence in 1996, far exceeding the allowable limit. His claim of performing liaison work in another town was belied by the presiding judge, who stated he was only sent on rare errands, with no supporting office orders or certificates of appearance.
The legal logic is grounded on Civil Service Commission rules and jurisprudence. Memorandum Circular No. 4, series of 1991, defines habitual absenteeism as incurring unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits for at least three months in a semester. Manatad’s prolonged and unexcused absences clearly constitute habitual absenteeism, causing inefficiency in public service. The Court consistently holds that public office is a public trust, requiring utmost responsibility. A court employee’s prolonged absence without leave is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting severe penalty. Considering his previous administrative record, the Court imposed the ultimate sanction of dismissal with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in any government agency.