Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF MS. NAHREN D. HERNAEZ

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. P-11-2930 2015-02-17	LEAVE DIVISION – O.A.S. v. TYKE J. SARCENO PER CURIAM
Conduct is prejudicial to the public service if it violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the people's faith in the Judiciary.[32] By the habituality and frequency of his unauthorized absences, Sarceno did not live up to the degree of accountability, efficiency, and integrity that the Judiciary has required of its officials and employees. His position as Clerk III was essential and indispensable to the Judiciary's primary mandate of the proper administration of justice. This mandate dictated that he as a court employee should devote his office hours strictly to the public service, if only to repay and serve the people whose taxes were used to maintain the Judiciary.[33] His habitual absenteeism severely compromised the integrity and image that the Judiciary sought to preserve, and thus violated this mandate.
	AM No. P-06-2256 2013-04-10	PO2 PATRICK MEJIA GABRIEL v. SHERIFF WILLIAM JOSE R. RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Immoral conduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service are both classified as grave offenses under Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and are punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Section 55 of the same Rules provides that "if the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances."[23] While the severity of and penalty for the offenses of immoral conduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service are the same, Section 55 is still applicable in this case. In Re: Frequent Unauthorized Absences of Ms. Nahren D. Hernaez,[24] the respondent was charged and found guilty of two different grave offenses. Nevertheless, this Court agreed with the recommendation of the Office of Administrative Services to apply Section 55 by analogy and impose a single penalty of 12 months suspension without pay for both offenses.
	AM No. P-12-3044 2013-04-08	JUDGE ANASTACIO C. RUFON v. MANUELITO P. GENITA PERALTA, J.
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.