SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3959. June 19, 2019.](Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-4682-P)
PRESIDING JUDGE JAIME B. SANTIAGO, BR. 3, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, complainant, vs.LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, SHERIFF IV, BR. 18, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGAYTAY CITY, CAVITE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3959 (formerly OCA IPI No. 17-4682-P) — PRESIDING JUDGE JAIME B. SANTIAGO, BR. 3, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, complainant, versus LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, SHERIFF IV, BR. 18, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGAYTAY CITY, CAVITE, respondent.
In a Memorandum 1 dated March 8, 2017, Presiding Judge Jaime B. Santiago (the complainant), of Br. 3, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, in his capacity as full-time Acting Presiding Judge of Br. 18, RTC, Tagaytay City, Cavite, charged respondent Laydabell G. Pijana (Sheriff Pijana), Sheriff IV, of Br. 18, RTC, Tagaytay City, Cavite, with serious discourtesy, gross inefficiency, disobedience and insubordination, habitual absenteeism and tardiness.
In the above 2017 Memorandum, complainant Judge Santiago alleged the following: As shown by the attached Daily Time Records (DTRs), Sheriff Pijana is tardy everyday, and leaves the court before noon without informing anyone of her whereabouts nor whether she will be performing her duties. Records show that cases were reset due to unserved summons, and postings were not observed, thus resulting in delay in case disposition. Fed up with Sheriff Pijana's attitude, the complainant issued a Memorandum dated September 16, 2016 which ordered, among others, that Sheriff Pijana should stay in the court and may only leave upon the complainant's direct orders and approval to ensure that summons and court processes are timely served. Despite the said 2016 Memorandum and repeated warnings, Sheriff Pijana continued to defy the orders and regulations of the court. Her non-attendance during flag raising ceremonies and her attendance for the period of October 2016 to February 28, 2017 show her stubbornness. Thus, the complainant prayed that Sheriff Pijana be immediately suspended pending investigation and filing of administrative complaints against her. 2
In an Indorsement 3 dated April 7, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Sheriff Pijana to comment on the above complaint within 10 days from receipt. In her Comment 4 dated May 31, 2017, Sheriff Pijana denied all charges against her and she asserted that the more accurate proofs of her attendance are the Sheriff's Return and not the DTRs attached to the complaint. She said that her duties require her to travel to serve summons, but she would come back to the court, especially for releasing an accused on bail or whose charges had been dropped. 5
In an Indorsement 6 dated July 10, 2017, Atty. Wilhelmina Geronga, OCA Chief of Office of the OCA Legal Office, directed Atty. Caridad Pabello (Atty. Pabello), OCA Chief of Office of the OCA-Office of Administrative Services (OCA-OAS) to verify the accuracy of Sheriff Pijana's DTRs prepared by Diana H. Gloriana-Ruiz (OIC Ruiz), Officer-in-Charge of Br. 18, RTC, Tagaytay City, Cavite, for the period of January 2016 to February 2017. In a Memorandum 7 dated August 2, 2017, Atty. Pabello reported the following: Sheriff Pijana's alleged absences as marked by OIC Ruiz in the DTRs for the period of January 2016 to February 2017 were approved leaves or "with service" rendered, and signed by the complainant. On February 23, 2017, the salaries and other benefits of Sheriff Pijana were withheld due to non-submission of DTRs for the period of November 2016 onwards. On May 18, 2017, the Employees' Leave Division (ELD) returned Sheriff Pijana's DTRs and leave application for January to April 2017 for the complainant's signature. However, as of the date of the Memorandum (August 2, 2017), the same has not been returned to the ELD. 8
In a Report 9 dated March 1, 2018, the OCA made the following findings and recommendations: The charges of serious discourtesy, gross inefficiency, disobedience and insubordination should be dismissed for lack of merit and factual basis. The complainant failed to cite the specific acts committed by Sheriff Pijana which constitute the said charges. Section 11, 10 Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service 11 (2017 RACCS) requires that the complaint shall contain a narration of the relevant and material facts which shows the acts or omissions allegedly committed. The complainant did not present corroborative evidence to lend any tangible merit to the complaint that Sheriff Pijana committed the administrative offenses imputed against her. Jurisprudence dictates that in administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence, and that failure to do so to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty warrants the dismissal of the charges for lack of merit. The charge of habitual absenteeism or unauthorized absences should also be dismissed as the records do not validate such allegation. Atty. Pabello's Memorandum dated August 2, 2017 together with the attached manual DTRs and Personnel System on Attendance and Leave Monitoring (PSALM)-generated DTRs for the period January to December 2016 do not manifest any unauthorized absence in any month; the dates marked as absent in OIC Ruiz's report are accounted per OAS-OCA as either approved leave applications or with services rendered. The manual DTRs of Sheriff Pijana for several months, including November and December 2016 show that complainant affixed his signature under the Verified as to the prescribed office hours of the DTRs, which gives the said DTRs more credence and probative value than the summary report of Sheriff Pijana's attendance that was prepared by OIC Ruiz. Anent Sheriff Pijana's January and February 2017 DTRs, the release of her salary for the said period warrants the conclusion that any disputed entry therein had been resolved or rendered moot and academic. However, the charge of habitual tardiness is impressed with merit. Section 22 (q), 12 Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws 13 provides that an employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he/she incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year. Although this is the first time that Sheriff Pijana is formally charged with habitual tardiness, records reveal that she was habitually tardy for the two (2) semesters of 2016. In the first semester of 2016, she was tardy more than ten (10) times for each of the six (6) consecutive months covering the period January to June 2016, i.e., January (13 times), February (15 times), March (14 times), April (14 times), May (11 times), and June (13 times). In the second semester of the same year, she was late for more than ten (10) times for each of the four (4) consecutive months covering the period August to November 2016, i.e., August (13 times), September (12 times), October (11 times), and November (12 times). Since Sheriff Pijana committed two (2) counts of habitual tardiness, the appropriate penalty to be imposed is suspension pursuant to Section 46 (B) and (F), 14 Rule 10 of the 2011 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011 RRACCS). 15 Considering that she has been in the government service for more than seventeen (17) years, and it appearing that she has not been previously found liable of any administrative offense, the penalty of one (1) month suspension is reasonable. However, given the nature of the duties and responsibilities of a sheriff, a fine in lieu of suspension may be imposed pursuant to Section 47, 16 Rule 10 of the 2011 RRACCS (now Section 52, Rule 10 of the 2017 RACCS). 17
Thus, the OCA recommended that: (a) the instant administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; (b) Sheriff Pijana be fined in the amount of P22,361.00 (equivalent to the last salary received) in lieu of the penalty of one (1) month suspension for two (2) counts of habitual tardiness, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely; and (c) the charges of serious discourtesy, gross inefficiency, disobedience, and insubordination and habitual absenteeism against Sheriff Pijana be dismissed for lack of merit and factual basis. 18
The Court adopts the OCA's findings and recommendation. The Court notes that in Sheriff Pijana's Comment, she merely denied that she was habitually tardy. However, as found by the OCA, the records revealed otherwise. She failed to give a reason for her habitual tardiness in 2016, i.e., January (13 times), February (15 times), March (14 times), April (14 times), May (11 times), June (13 times), August (13 times), September (12 times), October (11 times), and November (12 times). In Re: Rosemarie B. Pe, 19 the Court suspended the respondent therein for twenty (20) days for habitual tardiness, i.e., May 2002 (17 times), June 2002 (11 times), July 2002 (13 times), August 2002 (20 times), September 2002 (20 times), January 2003 (19 times), February 2003 (17 times), and March 2003 (20 times). The Court therein cited Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 02-99, 20 which provides that all courts must observe the prescribed office hours, i.e., 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Moreover, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-99 21 provides that court officials and employees must strictly observe official time and be punctual.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders the following:
1. Laydabell G. Pijana, Sheriff IV of Br. 18, Regional Trial Court, Tagaytay City, Cavite be FINED in the amount of P22,361.00 (equivalent to the last salary received) in lieu of the penalty of one (1) month suspension for two (2) counts of habitual tardiness, with STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely; and
2. The charges of serious discourtesy, gross inefficiency, disobedience, and insubordination and habitual absenteeism against Sheriff Pijana be DISMISSED for lack of merit and factual basis.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id. at 1-18.
3.Id. at 37.
4.Id. at 44-46.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 95.
7.Id. at 110-115.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 169-174.
10. SECTION 11. Requisites of a Valid Complaint. — No complaint against an official or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. In cases initiated by the proper disciplining authority or an authorized representative, a show cause order is sufficient.
The complaint shall be written in a clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the person complained of, of the nature and cause of the accusation and to enable the person complained of to intelligently prepare a defense or answer/comment. Should there be more than one person complained of, the complainant is required to submit additional copies corresponding to the number of persons complained of.
The complaint shall contain the following:
a. full name and address of the complainant;
b. full name and address of the person complained of as well as his/her position and office;
c. a narration of the relevant and material facts which shows the acts or omissions allegedly committed;
d. certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of his/her witnesses, if any; and
e. certification or statement of non-forum shopping.
The absence of any of the aforementioned requirements may cause the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to its refiling upon compliance with the same.
11. CSC Resolution No. 1701077, July 3, 2017.
12. SECTION 22. Administrative offenses with [their] corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of [their] nature and effects of said acts on the government service.
The following are grave offenses with corresponding penalties:
xxx xxx xxx
(q) Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours
1st Offense — Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
2nd Offense — Dismissal
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 Leave Law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.
Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year. In case of claim of ill-health, heads of department of agencies are encouraged to verify the validity of such claim and, if not satisfied with the reason given, should disapprove the application for sick leave. On the other hand, cases of employees who absent themselves from work before approval of the application should be disapproved outright.
In the discretion of the Head of any department, agency, or office, any government physician may be authorized to do a spot check on employees who are supposed to be on sick leave.
13. Dated June, 1995.
14. SECTION 46. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
xxx xxx xxx
B. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense:
xxx xxx xxx
5. Frequent unauthorized absences, or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing from duty during regular office hours;
xxx xxx xxx
F. The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness);
15. CSC Resolution No. 1101502, November 8, 2011.
16. SECTION 47. Penalty of Fine. — The following are the guidelines for the penalty of fine:
1. Upon the request of the head of office or the concerned party and when supported by justifiable reason/s, the disciplining authority may allow payment of fine in place of suspension if any of the following circumstances are present:
a. When the functions/nature of the office is impressed with national interest such as those involved in maintenance of peace and order, health and safety, education; or
b. When the respondent is actually discharging frontline functions or those directly dealing with the public and the personnel complement of the office is insufficient to perform such function; and
c. When the respondent committed the offense without utilizing or abusing the powers of his/her position or office.
2. The payment of penalty of fine in lieu of suspension shall be available in Grave, Less Grave and Light Offenses where the penalty imposed is for six (6) months or less at the ratio of one (1) day of suspension from the service to one (1) day fine; Provided, that in Grave Offenses where the penalty imposed is six (6) months and one (1) day suspension in view of the presence of mitigating circumstance, the conversion shall only apply to the suspension of six (6) months. Nonetheless, the remaining one (1) day suspension is deemed included therein.
17. Rollo, pp. 169-174.
18. Id. at 173-174.
19. 483 Phil. 120 (2004).
20. Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness, January 15, 1999.
21. Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and Employees, January 15, 1999.