A.M. No. P-09-2603, November 23, 2010
Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Nelson G. Marcos, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Caloocan City

FACTS

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred a report from the Leave Division concerning the habitual absenteeism of respondent Nelson G. Marcos, Sheriff III. The report detailed that from 2005 to 2008, Marcos incurred unauthorized absences far exceeding the allowable limit: 65 days from June to December 2005, 130 days in 2006, 131.5 days in 2007, and 97 days in 2008. Specific months showed egregious patterns, such as being absent for 22 days in March 2007 and 23.5 days in March 2008.
In his comment, Marcos attributed his initial absences to a foot fracture from an October 2004 accident, claiming incapacitation for three months. He also cited workplace grievances against his supervisor. However, the Supreme Court Medical and Dental Services disapproved his sick leave application for January to April 2005, as a repeat X-ray showed no evidence of a fracture, and Marcos failed to submit the original film, which he claimed was lost by the Leave Division. The OCA found no valid justification for the prolonged, continuous unauthorized absences from 2005 onward.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nelson G. Marcos is administratively liable for Habitual Absenteeism and what penalty should be imposed.

RULING

Yes, the Court found Marcos guilty of Gross Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Public Service, warranting dismissal. The legal logic rests on the stringent standards for public servants and the specific definition of habitual absenteeism under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991. An employee is habitually absent if unauthorized absences exceed the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months in a year. Marcos’s extensive, unexplained absences over multiple years clearly met this criterion.
The Court rejected Marcos’s defenses. The medical disapproval of his sick leave for 2005 invalidated his primary health claim, and he presented no substantial proof for subsequent years. His neglect of duty severely prejudiced the court’s operations and the litigants it serves, violating the fundamental principle that public office is a public trust. As held in Juntilla v. Calleja, every judiciary employee must uphold conduct above suspicion. Habitual absenteeism of this magnitude constitutes gross misconduct, a grave offense. For a second offense (as his pattern indicated), the prescribed penalty is dismissal. Thus, the Court imposed dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except earned leave credits) and prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.