Republic of the Philippines

Provincial Government of Palawan

Provincial Legal Office
Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

MICHAEL DUPS P. CORRO, PLO Admin No. 05-18

Draftsman II
Provincial Planning and Development Office

For: Frequent Unauthorized Tardiness under

Rule 10 Section 50 (F) (4) of the Revised
Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil
Service
x--------------------------x

FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

FACTS OF THE CASE
Per initial report1 on the List of Employees who incurred Tardiness for the Period of July
to December 2018 submitted by the Human Resource Management Office to the Hon. Governor
Jose Ch. Alvarez and forwarded before the Provincial Legal Office for investigation, Mr.
Michael Dups P. Corro2 Draftsman II, Provincial Planning and Development Office allegedly
incurred tardiness on the following months:

MONTHS TARDY NO. OF TIMES TARDY

August 10

October 12

On the basis of such report, the Provincial Legal Office commenced the preliminary
investigation and issued a Show Cause Order3 to Respondent dated July 18, 2019, directing him
to explain in writing, within five (5) days, why no administrative case should be filed against
him.

On August 27, 2019, the Provincial Legal Office received his answer 4stating the
following:

Xxx

On August 21, 2018 I made some errands at my mother’s house and was
requested to work and cut some iron works. I used a power tool sundering
machine which caused to an accident that I almost lost my right foot.

1
Report from the Human Resource Management Office is hereto attached as “Annex A”
2
Hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”
3
Show Cause Order dated July 18, 2019 is hereto attached as “Annex B”
4
Answer to the Show Cause Order Dated July 18, 2019 is hereto attached as “Annex C”
 That sunder blade cut open a wound on my right foot that led to 9
stitches. I was advised to go back to the doctor every two (2) days for proper
cleaning of the wound.

That accident became my burden as I cannot walk normally, I have a

hard time taking a bath, changing clothes, driving and doing all my routine
which most of the time led me to be late at work or to be absent. That
predicament of mine lasted until November 2018.

xxx

On October 8, 2019, Respondent was notified that a Clarificatory Conference is

scheduled on October 10, 20195 at the Provincial Legal Office.
Accordingly, Respondent admitted the charge against him and maintained his explanation on the
answer. Thus, based on the Preliminary Investigation Report 6, a prima facie case for
unauthorized tardiness against the Respondent exists.

Subsequently, on November 11, 2019, the preliminary investigation concluded with the
recommendation by the Investigating Officer that Respondent be formally charged for Frequent
Unauthorized Tardiness under Rule 10 Section 50 (F) (4) of the Revised Rules on Administrative
Cases in Civil Service.

Finding merits on the recommendation, the Disciplining Authority issued a Formal

Charge against Respondent directing him to submit his answer within five (5) days from receipt
7

of the charge, in writing and under oath. In his Answer, 8 the same averment as that in his answer
in the Show Cause Order was advanced by Respondent, viz:

Xxx

On August 21, 2018 I made some errands at my mother’s house and was
requested to work and cut some iron works. I used a power tool sundering
machine which caused to an accident that I almost lost my right foot.

That sunder blade cut open a wound on my right foot that led to 9
stitches. I was advised to go back to the doctor every two (2) days for proper
cleaning of the wound.

That accident became my burden as I cannot walk normally, I have a

hard time taking a bath, changing clothes, driving and doing all my routine
which most of the time led me to be late at work or to be absent. That
predicament of mine lasted until November 2018.
xxx

Notably, attached to his Answer are his Daily time Records, Photograph of his wounded
ankle and a medical certificate. Per findings by his physician on August 13, 2018, Respondent
has hypertension. Meanwhile, on August 21, 2018, it was indicated that he has lacerated cut
ankle.

Subsequently, on December 6, 2019, a Pre-Hearing Conference was conducted attended

by Atty. Ariel Abis, Prosecuting Attorney, Respondent Michael Dups Corro who appeared
without the assistance of counsel, and the Hearing Officer, Atty. Mary Joy M. Ordaneza-Cascara.

5
Notice of Clarificatory Conference is hereto attached as “Annex D”
6
Copy of the Preliminary Investigation is hereto attached as “Annex E”
7
Formal Charge is hereto attached as “Annex F”
8
Copy of Answer to the Formal Charge is hereto attached as “Annex 9”
 At the commencement of the hearing, Respondent was asked whether or not he would
like to defer the hearing after he has secured the assistance of counsel of his choice or continue
with the proceeding without counsel. Portion of the stenographic notes are as follows:

xxx

Hearing Officer : At this stage, you have the right to secure your own lawyer.
Would you like to have one and defer the proceeding today or
would you like to continue without the assistance of counsel?

Respondent : Not anymore, Your Honor. I agree to continue the proceeding

without counsel.

Hearing Officer : Let it be noted that the Respondent waived his right to have a
counsel of his own during the pre-hearing conference. May we
proceed Mr. Prosecuting Attorney for the stipulation of facts,
etc.

xxx

Notably, Respondent admitted the charge against him and maintains the reason behind
such infraction as stated in his answer in the formal charge

In the course of the proceeding, Atty. Ariel A. Abis motioned that in lieu of conducting a
formal hearing, parties shall submit position papers based on Section 35 of the 2017 Revised
Rules in Administrative Cases in Civil Service. Respondent posed no objection to the Motion.
Thus, it was agreed that parties shall submit their respective position papers within fifteen (15)
days from date of hearing.

On January 8, 2020, Respondent submitted his position paper 9 wherein he reiterated his
answer in the show cause order and formal charge. In support of his claim that his tardiness was
justified, Respondent averred,

“ In the first semester of 2018 and for the whole year of 2019 Respondent had
no record of being tardy nor being absent, which proves that his medical
predicament on the second semester of 2018 was the main factor why he
incurred such tardiness.”

Notably, Respondent attached his medical certificate and a memorandum dated

October 5, 2018 giving authority to Respondent to render overtime and a certification
signed by his Supervising Administrative Officer to the effect that he was instructed to
render overtime which prevented him from applying for leave despite his condition.

Meanwhile, the Prosecuting Attorney submitted his position paper likewise reiterating the
charges against the Respondent with supporting documents such as the Daily Time Records and
the report from the Human Resources Management Office.

ISSUE

Whether or not Respondent, Michael Dups P. Corro is liable for Frequent Unauthorized
Tardiness under 10 Section 50 (F) (4) of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
Civil Service.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9
Copy of Position Paper is hereto attached as “Annex 10”
 On January 31, 2017, the Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum Circular No.
01, series of 2017, as reiteration of the Policy on Government Office Hours; and the
Administrative Offenses of Frequent Unauthorized Absences (Habitual Absenteeism); Tardiness
in Reporting for Duty; and Loafing from Duty during Regular Office Hours. Pertinent provisions
of the said Memorandum are the following:

Xxx

2. On Frequent Unauthorized Absences (Habitual Absenteeism), Tardiness in Reporting

for Duty and Loafing from Duty during Regular Office Hours, Section 22, Rule XIV,
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides:

Xxx
“An officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent
is he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly
leave credit under the Leave Law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at
least three (3) consecutive months during the year.

Further, Section 46 (B) (5), Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RRACCS) provides that Frequent Unauthorized Absences (Habitual Absenteeism),
Tardiness in Reporting for Duty, and Loafing from Duty during Regular Office Hours are
grave offenses punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense.

On the other hand, under Section 46 (F) (4), RRACCS, Frequent Unauthorized
Tardiness (Habitual Tardiness) is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first
offense, suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense, and dismissal
from the service for the third offense. It is committed when an official or employee
incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at
least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the
year.

The classification of Habitual Tardiness as either a grave or a light offense would

depend on the frequency or regularity of its commission and its effects on the
government service.

It is noteworthy that Resolution No. 1101502 promulgated on November 8, 2011

otherwise known as Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) was
revised by Resolution No. 1701077 promulgated on July 03, 2017 otherwise known as 2017
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS).

Thus, Section 46 (B) (5), Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RRACCS) provides that Frequent Unauthorized Absences (Habitual Absenteeism), is now
under Rule 10 Section 50 (B) (4) while Section 46 (F) (4), RRACCS, Frequent Unauthorized
Tardiness (Habitual Tardiness) is now under Rule 10 Section 50 (F) (4).

Henceforth, Respondent in the instant case was charged for Frequent Unauthorized
Tardiness under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) Rule 10
Section 50 (B) (4) thereof.

In this case, Respondent’s admission in his answer to the formal charge and during the
pre-hearing conference and the Daily Time Records 10 and the report from Human Resource
Management Office submitted deemed to have substantially supported the charge thereby

10
Daily Time Record is hereto attached as “Annex G”
satisfying the required quantum of proof in administrative cases which is substantial evidence.
Such evidence has been defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.11

The explanation advanced by the Respondent was found insufficient to overthrow and
justify the infractions committed.

Respondent’s justification is mainly anchored on the accident transpired on August 21,

2018 which resulted to his injured ankle. Considering the severity of the injury as Respondent
claims, it would have been understandable and proper for him to have applied for sick leave to
give him ample time to recuperate. However, as averred by Respondent, he cannot afford to be
absent from Office due to urgent projects/assignments. In support of this averment, Respondent
advanced Memorandum No. 201 series of 201812 wherein he was directed to render overtime on
October 5-9, 2018 and a certification signed by his supervising head to the effect that such was
the reason why he was not able to apply for leave despite his condition.

Notably, the accident occurred last August 21, 2018, significantly more than a month
prior to the issuance of the above-cited memorandum. Thus, Respondent cannot properly rely on
said Memorandum to prove that urgent workload prevented him from taking leave right after he
had an injury.

All these taken together would necessarily lead to a conclusion that it was Respondent’s
choice not to avail of sick leave when his situation justifiably calls for it as such leave is
presumed to have been made available to employees precisely during these times. Otherwise
stated, Respondent is not left with no recourse to prevent violation of the rule on tardiness.

Consequently, based on the investigation conducted, Respondent Michael Dups P. Corro

is found to have violated Rule 10 Section 50 (F) (4) of the Civil Service Rules and, therefore,
liable for Frequent Unauthorized.

We now come to the appropriate penalty.

Based on 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017
RACCS), Frequent Unauthorized Tardiness (Habitual Tardiness) under Rule 10 Section 46
(F) (4) of the Revised Rules on Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one (1) to thirty
(30) days for the second offense, and dismissal from the service for the third offense.13

Per records, Respondent has previously been charged with habitual tardiness in the case
docketed as PLO Admin. Case No. 09-17 and meted the penalty of reprimand with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely. Thus, the instant case is considered a second offense.14

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the charge of Frequent Unauthorized Tardiness

(Habitual Tardiness) is classified as Light Offense under Rule 10 (F) (4) under the Rules on
Administrative Cases in Civil Service. Hence, this being Respondent’s second offense, it is
hereby recommended that Respondent Michael Dups Corro be meted the penalty of
SUSPENSION as may be deemed just and proper.

Puerto Princesa City, February 17, 2020.

11
Eduardo B. Prangan v. NLRC, G.R. 126529, April 15, 1998.
12
Refer to Attachment in Annex 10 hereof
13
DILG M.C. 2017- 34, Feb. 21, 2017 and CSC M.C. No. 01, s. 2017
14
Decision dated January 4, 2018
 TEODORO JOSE S. MATTA
Provincial Legal Officer