Back

OCA vs. Bravo

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. VLADIMIR A. BRAVO, COURT INTERPRETE II, BRANCH 24, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA, RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. P-18-3822 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-7-62-MeTC]] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. VLADIMIR A. BRAVO, COURT INTERPRETER II, BRANCH 24, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

A.M. No. P-17-3710 (Formerly A.M. No. 13-6-44-MeTC) | 2018-03-13

DECISION
 
PER CURIAM:
 
Time and again, We must recapitulate that to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[1]
 
Factual Antecedents

These consolidated administrative cases discuss the habitual absenteeism of Vladimir A. Bravo (Bravo), Court Interpreter II, of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Manila, Branch 24.

Teodora R. Balboa, the Branch Clerk of Court of the MeTC, Br. 24, Manila, wrote in a letter dated December 11, 2012, to the Office...