OPPRESSION FOR NON-APPROVAL OF SICK LEAVE OF UTILITY AIDE?

Judge A was charged with Oppression for non-approval of a sick leave filed by the
mother of the courts utility aide together with four (4) Judges and sixty-nine (69) court
personnel because of her retaliation for signing a complaint against her.

Did Judge A commit Oppression in the non-approval of the leave of utility aide? The
answer is in the negative.

The non-approval of sick leave has factual and legal bases.

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.
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
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.

1
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.

The applicant of leave who is courts utility aide did not file immediately sick
leave upon his return of such leave.

There is no proof adduced by the mother that Judge A committed oppression and
harassment against her son prior to his untimely demise without furnishing the trial court
a copy of his death certificate, despite the request from the mother because the courts
process server was asking monetary donations from the trial court thru Judge A for his
wake. This death certificate is a proof that will disprove the false and malicious charge
by seventy- four complainants that Judge A caused his death in ordering him to lift the
table despite of his sickness in another related administrative case.

Moreover, the same utility aide requested Judge A to officiate his marriage, few days
before he went on AWOL for two weeks, this will not happen if Judge A committed
oppression and harassment against him in a complaint filed a month earlier by seventy-
four complainants including the utility aide. Before the solemnization of his marriage in
the trial court, courts utility aide only showed up less than twenty minutes before Judge
A for work then he is gone all day in many days while in supposed attendance in court
. When Judge A inquired his whereabouts, courts process server answered he was on
errand. When Judge A inquired court utility aide as to his health status because of the
rumors that he is in bad shape, the answer was he is slowly recovering from his
sickness that is unknown to Judge A as to what is his sickness all about because none
of the court employees, including the utility aide divulged it.

The time and effort Judge A consumed in explaining the jurisprudence of RE:
Memorandum of Report of Atty. Thelma C. Bahia Against Ms. Dorothy Salgado A.M.
No. 2004-41-SC, January 13, 2005 to his mother belied that charge of oppression
against her.

Judge A has given him so many small things that mattered to his financial status. For
one personal delivery of letter to the Office of the Court Administrator, she gave him
P500 to P1,000, and there were so many errands he made for her. It was natural to
express a disappointment about him filing of a false and malicious complaint against her
2
to his mother. There was nothing illegal to what she said to her mother who must have
misunderstood what she said. Also, Judge A was misquoted by his mother. There was
no proof that Judge A made those insensitive and unsavory remarks to her.

There is no reason to retaliate to her son. Judge A will perform a legal act despite of
the bad deeds done to her by the mothers son. A Judge must be professional at all
times. It will be illegal on Judge A to deny approval of sick leave without any factual
basis and/ or legal basis.

In Marcelo vs. CA, G.R. No. 175201, April 23, 2008: The fundamental rule in
administrative proceedings is that the complainant has the burden of proving, by
substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Substantial evidence, which is
more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, would suffice to hold one administratively
liable. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable
ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even
if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. While substantial
evidence does not necessarily import preponderance of evidence as is required in an
ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt as is required in criminal
cases, it should be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion. There is
none here. The basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded.
The mother only alleged without any proof. The mother is not the proper party to sue
me for harassment, oppression, conduct unbecoming of a judge and gross ignorance of
the law committed against her son who is the alleged offended party in this
administrative case under the existing Revised Rules of Court, laws and jurisprudences.
The mothers accusations are not supported by any proof other than what others were
allegedly told to her who did not submit any proof nor testify before the investigating
Judge. Her allegations were unsubstantiated. Also, Judge A expressed her
grievance about his son disrespect actions towards her but her words were misquoted
by her. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial
evidence (Consolidated Edison Co. vs. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206,
83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131). Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation
likewise cannot be given credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on mere
conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the administrative
complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit (Manalabe vs. Cabie, A.M. No. P-05-
1984, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 582, 589; See also Adajar vs. Develos, A.M. No. P-05-
2056, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 361, 376-377; Ong vs. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-
1538, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 150, 160; Datuin, Jr. vs. Soriano, A.M. No. RTJ-01-
1640, October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 1, 5).
3
 The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ Josefina G. Labid vs. Judge Eliza
B. Yu
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.