Absence w/o official leave of Alberto vs. Monsanto etc.

A.M. No. P-06-2183             June 27, 2006

ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF ALBERTO V. MONSANTO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

This administrative matter concerns Alberto V. Monsanto, Utility Worker I of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan, Samar.

Records at the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Leave Section showed that Mr. Alberto V. Monsanto failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards from the month of May 2005 up to present. Neither has he filed any leave application.

On 26 September 2005, the OCA Leave Division sent a telegram¹ requiring Mr. Monsanto to submit the required DTRs/Bundy Cards for the months of May, June, July and August 2005, otherwise the OCA shall recommend the withholding of his salaries.

On 5 October 2005, OAS requested the Honorable Odelon Mabutin, Presiding Judge of the same court, to cause the service of a warning letter to Mr. Monsanto. In the said warning letter, Mr. Monsanto was required to explain in writing his unauthorized absences, otherwise, his dropping from the rolls shall be recommended to the Court.

In the Agenda Report² dated 7 October 2005, the OCA recommended to the Court the withholding of salaries and other benefits of Mr. Alberto Monsanto.

To date, Mr. Monsanto has not reported back for work. Neither has he complied with any of the directives of the OCA.

On 21 April 2006, the OCA recommended³ that Mr. Alberto V. Monsanto be dropped from the rolls effective 3 May 2005 and his position declared vacant relying on Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Resolution No. 99-1885 dated 23 August 1999.

The recommendation is proper under the circumstances. Mr. Monsanto falls within the purview of Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended, stating thus:

Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approval leave. – An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed, at his address appearing on his 201 files of his separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.

The above provision does not require prior notice to drop from the rolls the name of the employee who has been continuously absent without approved leave for at least 30 days.⁴ Defying the express directive of the Court for Mr. Monsanto to report back to work, he chose not to report for work since 3 May 2005, to the prejudice of the service.

Mr. Monsanto’s AWOL prejudiced public service. Time and again, this Court has made the pronouncement that any act which falls short of the existing standards for public service, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust. Public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. A court employee’s AWOL for a prolonged period of time constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and warrants the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits.⁵

We have repeatedly held that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish and even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.⁶

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Mr. Alberto V. Monsanto, Utility Worker I of the Municipal Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar, is hereby DROPPED from the service and his position is DECLARED VACANT. Let a copy of this decision be served upon the respondent at his address appearing on his 201 files pursuant to Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, as amended.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Footnotes

¹ Rollo, p. 7.

² Id. at 8.

³ Id. at 1-2.

⁴ Lameyra v. Mayor Pangilinan, 379 Phil. 116, 123 (2000).

⁵ Judge Loyao, Jr. v. Manatad, 387 Phil. 337, 344 (2000), citing Judge Masadao, Jr. v. Glorioso, 345 Phil. 859, 864 (1997).

⁶ Re: Absence Without Official Leave of Jacoba, 362 Phil. 486, 489 (1999).