Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF MR. FERNANDO P. PASCUAL.

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	AM No. P-11-2926 2012-02-01	JUDGE LUCINA ALPEZ DAYAON v. JESUSA V. DE LEON CARPIO, J.
However, in several administrative cases,[3] mitigating circumstances merited the leniency of the Court. The presence of factors such as length of service in the judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions and feeling of remorse, and family circumstances, among other things, play an important role in the imposition of penalties.[4] Also, in Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Fernando P. Pascual,[5] we have 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, her family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner.
	AM No. P-08-2436 2009-08-04	TEOPICIO TAN v. SALVACION D. SERMONIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nevertheless, Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[21] grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty. The Court has 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.[22] It is not only for 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 wage earners.[23]
	AM No. 2007-17-SC 2009-07-07	RE: UNAUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF UNNECESSARY
We also ruled that where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe.[26] It is not only for 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 wage earners.[27]
	AM No. P-07-2400 2009-06-23	JUDGE ISIDRA A. ARGANOSA-MANIEGO v. ROGELIO T. SALINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The court has 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.[34] It is not only for 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 wage earners.[35]
	AM No. P-08-2572 2008-11-19	JUDGE ILUMINADA P. CABATO v. FELIX S. CENTINO QUISUMBING, J.
Administrative Circular No. 14-2002[14] reiterates the said Civil Service rule on habitual absenteeism. Worth stressing, by reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the judiciary must faithfully observe the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. This duty calls for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time for public service, if only to recompense the government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees should at all times strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[15]
	AM No. P-06-2249 2008-10-08	JUDGE PLACIDO C. MARQUEZ v. LUCILA C. PACARIEM LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It must be stressed that all judicial employees must devote their official time to government service. They must exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as service in the judiciary is not only a duty; it is a mission.[22] To inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time.[23] Strict observance of official time is mandatory lest the dignity of the justice system be compromised.[24] Thus, Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel mandates that the same shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.[25]
	AM No. 2007-13-SC 2008-04-14	RE: HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF MR. ERWIN A. ABDON CORONA, J.
By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the judiciary must faithfully observe the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust.[8] This duty calls for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary.[9] Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees should at all times strictly observe official time.[10] As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[11]
	AM NO. 2006-11-SC 2006-09-13	RE: SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES INCURRING HABITUAL TARDINESS IN 2ND SEMESTER OF 2005 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This administrative case is the third incursion for Pascual and the second for Cadiz. Pascual was severely reprimanded for habitual tardiness[12] and fined P2,000.00 for habitual absenteeism.[13] Cadiz, on the other hand, was previously sternly warned for being habitually tardy for three (3) months.[14] The present malfeasance of Pascual and Cadiz warrants stiffer sanctions pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 63-2001 and Rule IV, Section 52 (C) paragraph 4 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which classifies Tardiness as a light offense with the following penalties: 4. Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)
	AM NO. P-05-2034 2006-09-11	FELOMINO D. MENDOZA v. ANNALEE C. NAVARRO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, in Balajadia v. Gatchalian[19], a court stenographer found guilty of simple misconduct was fined in the amount of P3,000.00 after the court took into consideration the fact that it was her first administrative offense. In addition, the Court in previous cases, found it proper to mitigate the administrative penalties imposed upon erring judicial officers and employees for humanitarian reasons coupled with other extenuating circumstances.[20] The court has 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.[21] It is not only for 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 wage earners.