Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81760:a-m--no--p-12-3044&catid=1569&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:05:23+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-12-3044 - Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3267-P, April 08, 2013 - JUDGE ANASTACIO C. RUFON, Complainant, v. MANUELITO P. GENITA, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52, BACOLOD CITY, Respondent.
JUDGE ANASTACIO C. RUFON, Complainant, v. MANUELITO P. GENITA, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52, BACOLOD CITY, Respondent.
This administrative case stemmed from the Letters of Judge Anastacio C. Rufon1 (Judge Rufon), dated July 16, 2009, and Mr. Gary G. Garcia2 (Mr. Garcia), dated August 3, 2009, relative to respondent Manuelito P. Genita’s daily time record (DTR) and application for leave for the month of June 2009, addressed to then Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, now a member of this Court. Judge Rufon was the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Bacolod City; Mr. Garcia was the Officer-in-Charge (OIC); while respondent was the Legal Researcher II, same court.
In a Resolution6 dated December 15, 2010, the Court required respondent to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for refusing to submit his comment despite the OCA’s directive. Respondent was also directed to submit the required Comment within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt with a warning that his failure to comply would compel the Court to decide the complaint against him on the basis of the records at hand. The Court also ordered that another notice be sent to respondent’s residence.
The OCA’s findings are well taken.
At the outset, we determine the propriety of Judge Rufon’s disapproval of respondent’s application for sick leave for June 11 to 30, 2009. Although the disapproval per se does not make respondent liable for any administrative offense, the same would make his absences during the aforesaid dates unauthorized.
Sick leave may be applied for in advance in cases where the official or employee will undergo medical examination or operation, or be advised to rest in view of ill health duly supported by a medical certificate.
Well settled is the rule that approval of application for sick leave, whether with pay or without pay, is mandatory as long as proof of sickness or disability is attached to the application.15 In this case, respondent filed his application for sick leave for June 11 to 30, 2009 supported by a medical certificate dated June 24, 2009 signed by the attending physician stating that respondent consulted him on June 15, 2009 and was diagnosed and treated for diabetes mellitus and hypertension; and that on June 24, respondent again consulted him with the following diagnoses: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia.16 The statements made by the attending physician only indicate respondent’s consultation on June 15 and 24 and no other. Nowhere in said certificate did the attending physician recommend that respondent needed to rest for the period he claimed to be sick or that he needed to be at the hospital for treatment. Thus, the medical certificate presented by respondent is insufficient to support his application for sick leave for a period of more than two weeks. Judge Rufon is, therefore, justified in disapproving his application for sick leave making his absence during those days unauthorized.
Per respondent’s June 2009 DTR, he claimed that he reported for work on June 1-5 and 8-10, but was on sick leave on June 11 to 30, 2009. Mr. Garcia, who was then the OIC, however, noted in the logbook that respondent did not report for work on the days the latter claimed he was present.
We cannot rely with particularity on the office logbook as basis to determine the accuracy of respondent’s entries in his DTR, because the employees were identified therein by their signatures without their complete name. Neither did the complainants nor respondent pointed to the contested entries. The only clear entry therein was the notation of Mr. Garcia that respondent did not report for work on those dates. In making it appear that he was present from June 1 to 10 but in fact he was not, respondent clearly falsified his DTR. Assuming that he was present on those contested dates, a perusal of the entries made in the logbook and respondent’s DTR would show that the time stated in the DTR did not correspond to any of the times entered therein by any of the employees. This leads to no other conclusion than that respondent did not make truthful entries in his DTR.
Inasmuch as this is respondent’s first offense, it is considered a mitigating circumstance in his favor.28 Moreover, under Section 53 (a) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the physical fitness or unfitness of respondent may be considered a mitigating circumstance in the determination of the penalties to be imposed.29 Records show that respondent already availed of optional retirement and he is in need of financial assistance for his medication for his recurring illness and we deem it proper to exercise liberality in the imposition of penalty. Taking into consideration the circumstances that mitigate respondent’s liability, we adopt the OCA’s recommendation to impose the penalty of fine equivalent to his salary for three (3) months to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
4 Letter dated August 3, 2009, id. at 3.
5 Memorandum dated November 13, 2011 of Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez to Hon. Justice Antonio T. Carpio, id. at 78.
9 Memorandum dated November 13, 2011 of Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez to Hon. Justice Antonio T. Carpio, id. at 78.
14Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Ms. Eva Rowena J. Ypil, Court Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City, A.M. No. 07-2-92-RTC, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 1, 6-7; Re: Unauthorized Absences of Karen R. Cuenca, Clerk II, Property Division-Office of Administrative Services, A.M. No. 2005-03-SC, March 15, 2005, 453 SCRA 403, 408.
15 Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Ms. Eva Rowena J. Ypil, Court Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City, supra, at 7; Re: Unauthorized Absences of Karen R. Cuenca, Clerk II, Property Division-Office of Administrative Services, supra, at 408.
21Judge How v. Ruiz, 491 Phil. 501, 508-509 (2005).
22Office of the Court Administrator v. Isip, A.M. No. P-07-2390, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 407, 412.
23 Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez III, A.M. No. P-11-2951, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 29, 35.
24Re: Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records (DTR) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Br. 18, RTC, Manila, Adm. Matter No. 03-8-463-RTC, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 572, 576.
25 Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez III, supra note 23; Office of the Court Administrator v. Isip, supra note 22; Re: Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe Brooks, 510 Phil. 262 (2005); Re: Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records (DTR) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Br. 18, RTC, Manila, supra note 24.
26 Re: Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe Brooks, supra note 25, at 267.
27 Office of the Court Administrator v. Isip, supra note 22, at 412.
28Re: Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records (DTR) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Br. 18, RTC, Manila, supra note 24, at 576.
29 Re: Frequent Unauthorized Absences of Ms. Nahren D. Hernaez, A.M. No. 2008-05-SC, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 1, 12-13.
30Re: Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe Brooks, supra note 25, at 266-267.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.