Habitual Absenteeism in the Judiciary: When Repeated Unauthorized Absences Lead to Dismissal

The Supreme Court has long held that court employees must devote their full working time to public service. When an employee repeatedly fails to report for work without proper leave, this does not just affect office efficiency—it erodes public trust in the Judiciary itself. In Leave Division – O.A.S., Office of the Court Administrator v. Sarceno (A.M. No. P-11-2930, February 17, 2015), the Court En Banc confirmed the dismissal of a court clerk who repeatedly went on unauthorized absences despite prior warnings and even an earlier show of remorse.

The Facts of the Case

Tyke J. Sarceno was a Clerk III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, in Manila. In December 2009, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that an administrative complaint for habitual absenteeism be filed against him after finding that he had incurred 92 days of unauthorized absences from June to September 2009.

In his defense, Sarceno claimed he suffered from abdominal pains, high fever, and influenza beginning in May 2009. He said he resorted to self-medication and later discovered he was also suffering from gonorrhea. He explained that he could not produce a medical certificate because he had not sought medical assistance early on, and he admitted filing his leave applications late due to "embarrassment and threat of ridicule." He expressed remorse and committed to correcting his ways.

Despite these explanations, Sarceno's absenteeism continued. In 2010, records showed he incurred 37 absences—34 of which fell in July, August, and September alone. He stopped reporting to work entirely on July 28, 2010. When the OCA sent a tracer letter requiring him to submit his bundy cards and leave applications, he did not respond.

The Issue

The central question was whether Sarceno was guilty of habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public service, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's findings and held Sarceno guilty of habitual absenteeism. Under Administrative Circular No. 14-2002, an employee is considered habitually absent if he or she incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year. Sarceno's 92 absences in 2009 and 37 absences in 2010 clearly exceeded these thresholds.

The Court also found him guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public service. Citing Loyao v. Manatad (A.M. No. P-99-1308, May 4, 2000), the Court stressed that a court employee's prolonged absence without leave constitutes conduct prejudicial to public service because it causes inefficiency and diminishes public faith in the Judiciary.

Why Dismissal Was Imposed

The applicable rules on administrative cases in the civil service classify habitual absenteeism as a grave offense. The Court, however, imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal even though this was Sarceno's first administrative charge. The Court reasoned that Sarceno had been given an opportunity to reform—he had expressed repentance in 2009—yet he repeated the same misconduct in 2010. He also failed to comply with the OCA's directives.

The Court noted that it has previously dismissed court employees for going AWOL even on a first offense, citing Loyao v. Manatad and Masadao v. Glorioso and Baldoz (A.M. No. P-96-1207, October 16, 1997). As the Court put it, mercy and compassion should be denied to employees who refuse to reform despite being given the chance to do so.

Sarceno's dismissal was ordered with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Practical Takeaways

• Habitual absenteeism is defined by rule. An employee commits it by incurring unauthorized absences exceeding 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months in a year.
• Health problems are not an automatic defense. Employees must follow proper leave procedures, including filing leave applications promptly and submitting medical certificates. Self-medication and embarrassment are not valid excuses.
• Repentance must be backed by reform. Expressing remorse means little if the employee repeats the same misconduct afterward.
• Dismissal can apply even on a first offense. Where the absenteeism is prolonged and the employee shows no willingness to reform, courts may impose dismissal rather than suspension.
• Court employees are held to higher standards. Public office is a public trust, and those working in the Judiciary must strictly observe office hours to preserve public confidence in the justice system.

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