"x x x.
Rule XVI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (Civil Service rules) provides the rules governing the different forms of leave granted to government employees and officers. Sections 16 and 20 mandate that an employee submit an application for both sick and vacation leaves, viz:
RULE XVI
Leave of Absence
x x x x x x x x x
SECTION 16. All applications for sick leaves of absence for one full day or more shall be on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon the employee's return from such leave. Notice of absence, however, should be sent to the immediate supervisor and/or to the office head. Application for sick leave in excess of five days shall be accompanied by a proper medical certificate.
SECTION 20. Leave of absence for any reason other than illness of an officer or employee or of any member of his immediate family must be contingent upon the needs of the service. Hence, the grant of vacation leave shall be at the discretion of the head of department/agency.
Under the Civil Service rules, an employee should submit in advance, whenever possible, an application for a vacation leave of absence for action by the proper chief of agency prior to the effective date of the leave.[1]
It is clear from the facts that Dacsig had failed to acquire the necessary leave permits. He offers no excuse or explanation for failing to obtain the necessary authorization for his leaves. Thus, he is guilty of taking unauthorized absences.
Under Section 50 of Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998, officials or employees who are absent without approved leave shall not be entitled to receive their salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of absence.[2]
Furthermore, we ruled in Re: Unauthorized Absences of Karen R. Cuenca, Clerk II, Property Division-Office of Administrative Services[3] that under Administrative Circular No. 2-99, which took effect on February 1, 1999, “[a]bsenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent" under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely.”
Dacsig has not explained his failure to enter his name in the office log book from January 2010 to 19 April 2010 and his claim that the Office Bundy Clock malfunctioned on the last week of March 2010.
With respect to the charge of drunkenness, although respondent readily admitted this charge, this Court cannot justify charging him with simple misconduct when the records do not even show that he has failed to live up to his duty to observe proper decorum[4] or to live up to the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice[5] because of his drunkenness.
Rule IV, Section 52 (A) (17) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[6] provides that the penalty for frequent unauthorized absences of a first offender is suspension for six months and one day to one year.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment