2,000 for habitual absenteeism to Fernando Pascual, a utility worker assigned at the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court. It was written by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago.
Legal quarters said the resolution was timely in the wake of President Arroyo’s Proclamation No. 929 on the observance until Nov. 12 of the National Consciousness Week for Punctuality and Civility (Linggo ng Pagpapahalaga sa Oras at sa Karapatan ng Kapwa).
"To inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employes are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible," the High Court said.
Pascual was absent for seven days in March, 11 days in April, and three days in May this year. He said his failing health was the reason for his absences.
He said he experienced abnormal blood pressure and frequent headache, and was bedridden for more than a week because of flu. In one occasion, he needed to take care of his sick children, and sometimes, he had no money for his transportation fare in going to the office.
He was first employed at the Supreme Court in 1979 as a casual and later on was designated sticher and finally as utility worker.
In 1997, he was diagnosed to have hypertension as certified to by the High Court’s medical and dental services.
The office of administrative services (OAS), while conceding that Pascual has hypertension, found untrue that he was bedridden for one week because of flu. It also said that the sickness of his children and his lack for funds for transportation fare "are not sufficient or valid reasons for him to be absent."
Thus, the OAS recommended that a P10,000 fine be imposed on the utility worker.
The High Court said its Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 which reiterates the Civil Service Commission’s policy on habitual absenteeism states that "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 months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year."
It said that the circular and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service impose the penalty of suspension of six months and one day to one year, for the first offense, and dismissal, for the second offense, in case of frequent unauthorized absences.
But it said in the determination of the penalty to be imposed, attendant circumstances, such as physical fitness, habituality, and length of service in the government, may be considered.
It said that Pascual has been in government service for 26 years and "this is the only time he was administratively charged."
"He immediately admitted his infractions, asked for forgiveness and understanding, and promised to reform. It also appears that respondent (utility worker) did not deliberately absent himself from work as he submitted applications for leave but they were disapproved because he had insufficient leave credits," the High Court said.
In reducing the recommended fine from P10,000 to P2,000 payable in 10 equal monthly installments, the Supreme Court said:
"In several cases, we have mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons. We have also considered length of service in the judiciary; the respondent’s acknowledgement of his infractions and feelings of remorse; and family circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty.
"We have also 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, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on wager-earner."
