GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW FOR NON-APPROVAL OF SICK LEAVE OF

UTILITY AIDE?

Judge A was charged with Gross Ignorance of the Law for non-approval of a sick
leave filed by the mother of the courts utility aide who was on absence without leave
(AWOL) two weeks before the application of the same sick leave in total disregard of
Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. 1998, section 53 and Memorandum Circular No. 14, s.
1999, section 54 which provide:

"2.2. V Application for Sick Leave

All applications for sick leave of absence for one (1) full day or more shall be made on
the prescribed form and shall be made on the prescribed form and shall be filed
immediately upon employee's return from such leave. Notice of absence, however,
should be sent to the immediate supervisor and/or the agency head. Application for sick
leave in excess of five (5) successive days shall be accompanied by a proper medical
certificate.

Sick leave may be applied for in advance in cases where the official or employee will
undergo medical examination or operation or advised to rest in view of ill health duly
supported by a medical certificate.

In ordinary application for sick leave already taken not exceeding five (5) days, the head
of department or agency concerned may duly determine whether or not granting of sick
leave is proper under the circumstances. In case of doubt, a medical certificate may be
required.

2.2.2 Approval of sick leave

Sick leave shall be granted only on account of sickness or disability on the part of the
employee concerned or of any member of his immediate family.

1
Approval of sick leave, whether with pay or without pay, is mandatory provided proof of
sickness or disability is attached to the application in accordance with the applicable
requirements. Unreasonable delay in the approval thereof or non-approval without
justifiable reason shall be a ground for appropriate sanction against the official
concerned."

Judge A was accused to be grossly ignorant of Section 54 of Memorandum Circular

No. 14, Series of 1999 which states that: "Sick leave shall be granted only on account of
sickness or disability on the part of the employee concerned or of any member of his
family. Approval of sick leave, whether with pay or without pay, is mandatory provided
proof of sickness is attached to the application in accordance with the applicable
requirements. Unreasonable delay in the approval thereof or non-approval without
justifiable reason shall be a ground for appropriate sanction against the official
concerned" (page 751, The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, Volume II). This is
because additional requirements were demanded by Judge A from the mother prior to
the approval of the leave of absence of her son, a courts utility aide, which are the
certificate of fitness to work and the certificate of confinement in the hospital that will be
submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator. According to the complainant, these
additional requirements showed Gross Ignorance of the Law of Judge A because
these are not required in Section 54 of Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1999.

Seventy court employees echoed similar administrative complaint against Judge A.

Did Judge A commit Gross Ignorance of the Law in the non-approval of sick leaver?
The answer is in the negative.

The denial of the application for leave of absence by the mother of a courts utility aide
has factual and legal bases. The following jurisprudence was explained in Tagalog to
the mother thus she must ensure compliance of the memoranda issued by Officer-in-
Charge prior to the approval of his application for leave of absence:

RE: Memorandum of Report of Atty. Thelma C. Bahia Against Ms. Dorothy Salgado
A.M. No. 2004-41-SC, January 13, 2005 declares that the crux of the charge against
respondent is her habitual absenteeism. Although respondent might have had a valid
reason for the absences by presenting uncontroverted medical certificates proving that
she suffered an illness, her failure to exert any effort to inform her office is a

2
contemptuous behavior that exacts disciplinary action of the Court. Rule XVI, Section 16
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292 provides:

Sec. 16. All application for sick leave of absence for one full day or more shall be made
on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon the employees return
from such leave. Notice of absence, however, should be sent to the immediate
supervisor and/or to the agency head. Application for sick leave in excess of five days
shall be accompanied by a proper medical certificate.

Also in Judge Misajon vs. Yglesias et al., A.M. No. P-08-2439, June 25, 2013: Indeed all
applications for sick leave for 1 day or more shall be made in prescribed form and shall
be filed immediately upon the employees return of such leave.

In view thereof, Judge A did not commit Gross Ignorance of the Law in this
administrative complaint because the applicant of leave who is courts utility aide
did not return to court to file his leave of absence for the approval by the court.

Judge A is not a doctor, she has no way of knowing if he, the utility aide, is fit to work
due to his numerous absences. She needed those medical certifications because of her
bad experiences with the court staff she complained about falsifying court minutes. The
mother of utility aide showed photocopied medical certificate and clinical abstracts.

There were photocopies of his medical certificate and clinical abstract presented to
Judge A by his mother. Why will she be branded as oppressive if she only expressed
the necessity to verify his sickness that is allowed by jurisprudences please? She
should be commended by the Honorable Office of the Court Administrator for strictly
complying with the jurisprudences.

There are jurisprudences that can be applied by analogy to her court that securing
certificate of fitness to work and related documents is a valid exercise of a management
prerogative.

3
Both tribunals found that after the respondent presented his medical certificate to the
petitioner to explain his absence, he even went back to his doctor for a certification that
he was already fit to return to work.

This administrative matter stemmed from a series of sick leave application of Castor
without any medical certificate. Castor incurred absences on the following dates:
January 10-11, 14-18, 21-25, 28-31, 2013;February 1, 4-8, 11-13, 16, 2013; and March
6-7, 12, 15, 19-22, 2013. Due to his frequent absences, he was referred to the SC Clinic
for medical evaluation to determine his physical fitness to continue with his duties and
responsibilities (Re: ADMINISTRATIVECHARGE OF MISCONDUCT RELATIVE TO
THE ALLEGED USE OF PROHIBITED DRUG ("Shabu") OF REYNARD B. CASTOR,
Electrician II, Maintenance Division, Office of Administrative Services, A.M. No. 2013-
08-SC, October 8, 2013).

In Opinaldo vs. Ravina, G.R. No. 196573, October 16, 2013:

Jurisprudence is replete with cases recognizing the right of the employer to have free
reign and enjoy sufficient discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including the
prerogative to instill discipline in its employees and to impose penalties, including
dismissal, upon erring employees. This is a management prerogative where the free will
of management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose takes form Even labor
laws discourage interference with the exercise of such prerogative and the Court often
declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. However, the
exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. Managerial prerogatives are
subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general
principles of fair play and justice. Hence, in the exercise of its management prerogative,
an employer must ensure that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related
activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding
penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of
the infraction. In the case at bar, we recognize, as did the appellate court, that
respondents act of requiring petitioner to undergo a medical examination and submit a
medical certificate is a valid exercise of management prerogative. This is further justified
in view of the letter-complaint from one of respondents clients, PAIJR, opining that
petitioner was "no longer physically fit to perform his duties and responsibilities as a
company guard because of his health condition." To be sure, petitioners job as security
guard naturally requires physical and mental fitness under Section 5 of Republic Act No.
5487, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 100. While the necessity to prove ones
physical and mental fitness to be a security guard could not be more emphasized, the
question to be settled is whether it is a valid exercise of respondents management

4
prerogative to prevent petitioners continued employment with the Agency unless he
presents the required medical certificate. Respondent argues, viz.: Thus, respondents
in the exercise of their MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE required Complainant to submit
a Medical Certificate to prove that he is "PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY FIT" for work
as Security Guard. Unfortunately, however, up to the present time, complainant failed to
submit said Medical Examination and Findings giving him clean bill of health, to
respondents. Herein respondents are ready and willing to accept him as such Security
Guard once he could submit said Medical Examination and Findings. The requirement
anent the presentation of such MEDICAL CERTIFICATE by Complainant to
Respondents is but a Management Measure of ensuring Respondents including
Complainant that Complainant is physically and mentally fit for continued Employment
and will not in any manner pose a danger or, threat to the respondents properties and
lives of their customers and other employees as well as to the person and life of
Complainant himself (The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433,
December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 377, 398-399, citing St. Michaels Institute v. Santos,
G.R. No. 145280, December 4, 2001, 371 SCRA 383, 391; Supreme Steel Corporation
v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Supreme Independent Union (NMS- IND-APL), G.R.
No. 185556, March 28, 2011, 646 SCRA 501, 525; Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Pawis ng
Makabayang Obrero (PAMAO-NFL), 443 Phil. 143, 149 (2003); The Coca-Cola Export
Corporation v. Gacayan, supra note 34, at 399). His mother presented photocopies of
medical certificate and clinical abstract to Judge A.

The action and allegation of the mother were bizarre because she has all the time,
around two weeks, to secure the requested documents that are easy to obtain from the
hospital, yet she opted to sue Judge A within that period, from the time of the giving of
the Memorandum of OIC until the filing of her complaint, more or less two weeks, she
did not submit any document, not even the original medical certificate, until now Judge
A did not see original copies of all pertinent documents requested by the court that
created a bad impression that her son has a faked sickness or a faked death.

Judge A cellphone received missed calls and text messages from a certain Mr. X who
introduced himself as Judge As former utility aide on December 28, 2015, 11:21 a.m.
greeting her a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from cell number 09974444666.
These missed calls and text messages are still registered and stored respectively on
Judge As cellphone to prove them before the Honorable Office of the Court
Administrator.

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ Josefina G. Labid vs. Judge Eliza
B. Yu
5
 Same charge was reiterated in OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Eleanor Bayog,
Leilani Tejero - Lopez, Manolo Garcia, Jasmine Lindain, Fetronillo Primacio Jr.,
Evelyn Depalobos, Benjie Ore, Erwin Russ Ragasa, Bien Camba, Marlon
Suligan, Arnold Obial, Ronald Quijano, Eduardo Ebreo, Chanda Tolentino,
Ronalyn Armarvez, Ma. Victoria Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Maryann Cayanan,
Ma. Luz Dionisio, Maribel Molina, Edward Eric Santos, Emilio Domine,
Ferdinand Molina, Ricardo Lampitoc, Jerome Aviles, Ana Lea Estacio, Cristina
l.ampitoc, Melanie Ragasa, Evangeline Ching, Lawrence Perez, Edmundo
Vergara, Lanie Aguinaldo, Karla Mae Pacunayen, Domingo Hocosol, Edwin
Ubana, Elizabeth Villanueva, lgnacio Gonzales, Zenaida Geronimo, Soledad
Bassig, Marvin Balicuatro, Aida Josefina lgnacio, Benigno Marzan, Marissa
Mashoor Ratsgoor, Marie Luz Obida, Joseph Pamatpat, Fortunato Diezmo,
Norner Villanueva, Edwin Jurok, Fatima Rojas, Armina Almonte, Anna Marie
Francisco, Ma. Cecilia Getrudes Salvador, Zenaida Geronimo, Virginia Galang,
Elsa Garnett, Amor Abad, Emelina San Miguel, Maxima Sayo, Romer Aviles,
Froilan Robert Tomas, Norman Garcia, Dennis Echegoyen vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
Same charge was reiterated in OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ Amor Abad, Emelina
San Miguel, Maxima Sayo, Romer Aviles, Froilan Robert Tomas, Norman Garcia
and Dennis Echegoyen vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B.
Yu on appeal because the Office of the Court Administrator omitted them in its
report and recommendation dated February 11, 2016.