A.M. No. P-11-2930 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3318-P) - LEAVE DIVISION – O.A.S., OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, VS. TYKE J. SARCENO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Judge Legaspi recommended that Sarceno be dropped from the rolls, or, in the alternative, that appropriate administrative charges be brought against him for habitual absenteeism. [20] A tracer letter dated September 23, 2010 was soon dispatched to Sarcenos residence requiring him to submit his bundy cards and/or leave applications for July 2010 and August 2010, or else his name would be recommended for dropping from the rolls. [21] However, he did not respond. [22] In its Administrative Matter for Agenda (AMFA) dated December 14, 2010, [23] the OCA submitted to the Court the following observations and recommendations, to wit: x x x Respondent Sarceno is undoubtedly liable for habitual absenteeism. Under Section 22(q), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), reiterated in Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 4, series of 1991 and Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 97-1823 dated 11 March 1997, an officer or employee commits habitual absenteeism if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable monthly leave credit of two and a-half (2.5) days under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year. Memorandum Circular No.41, series of 1998, also provides that applications for sick leave of absence for one full day or more shall be on a prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon the employees return from such leave. Application for sick leave in excess of five (5) days shall also be accompanied by a proper medical certificate. The respondent was thus required to notify his immediate supervisor and or the agency head (his presiding judge or the branch clerk of court) of his prolonged absences. Under Administrative Circular No. 2-99 dated January 15, 1999, all officials and employees of the judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that a public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. The evidence and the respondents admission sufficiently establish his culpability. Under Section 52 A(17), Rule IV of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), habitual absenteeism or tardiness is a Grave Offense punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. In Administrative Matter No. 00-06-09-SC (Re: Imposition of Penalty for Habitual Tardiness, 16 March 2004), the Court explicitly stated that moral obligation, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions , and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to ex