Court Stenographer Dismissed for Habitual Absenteeism and AWOL: A Lesson in Public Accountability

The Supreme Court's decision in Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Ms. Lilian B. Bantog (A.M. No. 00-11-521-RTC, June 20, 2001) serves as a firm reminder that those who work in the judiciary are held to the highest standards of conduct. The case involves a court stenographer who was dismissed from service for habitual absenteeism and going on AWOL, underscoring the principle that public office is a public trust. This article breaks down the facts, the applicable rules, and the practical lessons for government employees and private individuals alike.

The Facts of the Case

Ms. Lilian B. Bantog was a Court Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 168. Beginning January 4, 1999, she incurred numerous unauthorized absences. Despite repeated reminders and warnings from her superiors, her attendance did not improve. In July 2000, she was directed to report for work and explain why she should not be dropped from the rolls. Although she reported on July 25, 2000, she failed to submit the required explanation and was absent again on July 27 and 28. Her last day of work was July 31, 2000, after which she went on AWOL.

The branch clerk of court and the acting presiding judge both recommended her dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) likewise recommended that she be dismissed and her position declared vacant. The Supreme Court en banc agreed.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Ms. Bantog should be dismissed from service for habitual absenteeism and for being absent without official leave (AWOL). The Court also considered her neglect of duty, including her failure to transcribe stenographic notes in several criminal cases, which led to a citation for direct contempt and the issuance of a warrant for her arrest.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed Ms. Bantog from the service, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Her position was declared vacant.

The Court applied two key rules:

1. Habitual absenteeism – Under the Civil Service rules on leave and attendance, an employee is considered habitually absent if unauthorized absences exceed the allowable monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months during the year. Habitual absenteeism is classified as a grave offense. The penalty for the first offense is suspension; for the second offense, dismissal.

2. AWOL – Under the Civil Service rules, an employee who is continually absent without approved leave for at least 30 calendar days is considered on AWOL and may be separated from service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.

Ms. Bantog's absences spanned nearly two years, and she was on AWOL from July 2000 onward. Her stated reasons—marital problems, financial difficulties, and family concerns—were not accepted as justification. The Court emphasized that personal hardships, while understandable, do not excuse an employee from complying with the rules on leave and attendance.

The Standard of Conduct for Court Personnel

The Court reiterated that everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, "from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk," must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum. Citing the 1987 Constitution, the Court stressed that public office is a public trust, and public officers must serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Any act or omission that diminishes public faith in the judiciary cannot be countenanced.

This case illustrates that the judiciary does not tolerate negligence or absenteeism, especially when it disrupts court operations and delays the administration of justice. Ms. Bantog's failure to transcribe stenographic notes in pending cases directly prejudiced litigants and the court's work.

Practical Takeaways

• Attendance is a fundamental duty. Government employees, especially court personnel, must strictly comply with leave rules. Unauthorized absences, even if prompted by personal problems, can lead to administrative liability.
• Habitual absenteeism is a grave offense. Repeated unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable leave credits can result in suspension or dismissal, depending on the number of offenses.
• AWOL has serious consequences. Being absent without approved leave for 30 days or more can lead to automatic separation from service without prior notice.
• Public office demands accountability. Personal hardships do not excuse neglect of duty. Employees must seek proper leave approvals and communicate with their superiors.
• The judiciary protects its integrity. The Supreme Court will act decisively against personnel whose conduct undermines public trust in the courts.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.