The Court’s Ruling
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Administrative Circular No. 14-20021 (AC 14-2002) provides:
A. HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM
1. An officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year; x x x
B. SANCTIONS
The following sanctions shall be imposed for violation of the policy on habitual absenteeism:
1st offense – Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.
2nd offense – Dismissal from the service.
The circular provides that an employee is considered habitually absent if the employee incurred unauthorized absences exceeding the 2.5 days allowed per month for three months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year.
In the present case, De Leon incurred unauthorized absences for three consecutive months in the year 2010: 7 days in April, 14 days in May and 18 days in June. These unauthorized absences, which De Leon admitted and certified to by the OCA in a Report dated 13 August 2010, clearly fall under AC 14-2002. Under AC 14-2002 and The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,2 the penalty of habitual absenteeism for the first offense is suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.
However, in several administrative cases,3 mitigating circumstances merited the leniency of the Court. The presence of factors such as length of service in the judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions and feeling of remorse, and family circumstances, among other things, play an important role in the imposition of penalties.4 Also, in Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Fernando P. Pascual,5 we have ruled that where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only because of the law’s concern for the workingman. There is, in addition, her family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner.
Here, we have considered De Leon’s length of service, acknowledgment of her infraction and apology to determine the appropriate penalty. Since this is her first infraction, De Leon deserves another chance. However, the circumstances may not be further mitigated since De Leon had previously been issued several memoranda by Judge Dayaon in 2008 for her unauthorized absences, delay and failure to transcribe stenographic notes, and disobedience to lawful orders of the court. Also, in 2009, she reported for work less than her absences and tardiness. Thus, taking into account all the considerations, we adopt the recommendation of the OCA that De Leon be suspended for one month without pay with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Jesusa V. De Leon, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch 54, GUILTY ofHABITUAL ABSENTEEISM and impose on her the penalty ofSUSPENSION of ONE (1) MONTH WITHOUT PAY with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
