A.M. No. 95-6-02-SB, December 7, 1995
RE: REPORT ON THE ABSENTEEISM/TARDINESS OF SANTOS GONZALES, JR., SANDIGANBAYAN EMPLOYEE

FACTS

This administrative case arose from a report by the Sandiganbayan’s Executive Clerk of Court detailing six charges against Utility Worker Santos Gonzales, Jr.: habitual tardiness, undertime, absenteeism, late submission of daily time records (DTRs), neglect of duty, and falsification of DTR or logbook entries. The Supreme Court referred the matter to Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Jose S. Balajadia for investigation. Gonzales, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to all charges, attributing his infractions to grave family problems arising from his wife working abroad, which required him to act as both father and mother to his two children.
The investigation established, through documentary evidence including time records, logbooks, and memoranda, that from May 1994 to April 1995 (250 working days), Gonzales was tardy 161 times, worked undertime on at least 37 days, and was absent for 55 days. He also consistently submitted his DTRs late and neglected his cleaning duties. However, the evidence did not substantiate the charges of habitual absence (due to lack of proof he failed to file leave applications) or willful falsification of records.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Santos Gonzales, Jr. is administratively liable for the charges, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted Justice Balajadia’s report and found Gonzales guilty of four charges: habitual tardiness, undertime, late submission of DTRs, and neglect of duty. The Court absolved him of habitual absenteeism and falsification due to insufficient evidence, noting his guilty plea to these unproven charges was “ill-advised.” The Court rejected his defense of family problems as a complete justification, observing that such problems did not adequately explain the persistent and regular nature of his infractions over twelve months, including during school vacation periods.
Applying the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law, the Court identified habitual tardiness as the most serious proven offense, classified as a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense. The three other proven infractions were considered aggravating circumstances. While the Court appreciated his plea of guilt and family problems as mitigating circumstances, these were outweighed by the aggravating factors. Consequently, applying the rule that the maximum period of the penalty is imposed when aggravating circumstances predominate, the Court suspended Gonzales for ten months and one day.