The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld two decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman which found two workers of the National Transmission Corp. (Transco) guilty of simple misconduct and imposed one month suspension for failing to act on the leave of absence application of an employee that caused cancellation of her payroll.
The CA in its 11-page decision said the Ombudsman did not commit any error in finding petitioners Hernando Santos, cluster head of South Luzon Transmission Project (SLTP), and Walberto Ocampo, officer-in-charge, SLTP, guilty of simple misconduct and imposing the penalty of suspension of one month and one day since the penalty provided under 52, B2, rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for simple misconduct for first offense is suspension from one month and one day to six months.
The CA Seventh Division denied the petition filed by Santos and Ocampo and instead affirmed the assailed decision and order of the Ombudsman dated Feb. 29, 2008 and July 21, 2008, respectively.
The decision by Associate Justice Florito Macalino, cited that the evidence presented by respondent Kristina Lapuz, corporate staff analyst B of the STLP of the Transco, is substantial to support the finding that the petitioner is guilty of simple misconduct, since the findings of the Ombudsman states that the sick leave applications of respondent for October and November in year 2006 were endorsed to the Human Relation Division only in January, 2007 per memorandum of the HRD head dated February 2008.
“Moreover, it is undisputed that the terminal leave application of said respondent was still not acted upon even long after her separation from work, thus it is clear that herein petitioners (Santos and Ocampo) did not act upon the said terminal leave application and sick leave applications of respondent Lapuz within the reasonable period,” said Macalino.
Lapuz said that on Oct. 17, 2006, prior to leaving the office, she informed her immediate supervisor Sonia Santiago that she has fever, cold and severe cough. On Oct. 3, 2006, she called up again and informed her that she remains sick. When she reported to work two weeks later, she discussed her absences and promised to fill up her leave form and daily time record (DTR) for October 2006.
On Nov. 7, 2006, she called up Santiago to extend her leave for two weeks more as she remains sick. In November 2006, she sent her DTRs for October 2006, and November 2006 and duly accomplished leave forms to petitioner Ocampo. She received memorandum dated Nov. 13, 2006 from petitioner Ocampo requiring her to explain her absences. Despite her explanation, Edgar de la Torre, (now deceased) requested on Nov. 27, 2006 for the cancellation of her name from the payroll for performance based incentive under the 2006 Corporate Performance Appraisal System and she was declared absence without official leave or AWOL. This was noted by Santos.
Lapuz filed complaint against petitioners. Santiago denied the allegations of Lapuz who claimed that when she chanced upon Lapuz at the head office during the time she does not report for work at the project office and she advised her to inform petitioner Santos about the extended absence.
Ocampo denied having committed grave misconduct and systematic harassment against Lapuz. He also alleged that he has no control in the processing of respondent Lapuz’s benefit.
Santos on the other hand alleged that it was De la Torre who was the division manager who has control and supervision of Lopez.
Ombudsman found Santos and Ocampo guilty of simple misconduct, prompting them to file a motion for reconsideration. The Ombudsman in its July 21, 2008 order denied their motion. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
