THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-13-3142. September 18, 2013.][Formerly OCA-IPI 12-9-196-RTC]
HABITUAL TARDINESS OF SHIRLEY V. DE GUZMAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 201, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 18, 2013, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-13-3142 [Formerly OCA-IPI 12-9-196-RTC] (Habitual Tardiness of Shirley V. De Guzman, Court Stenographer III, Branch 201, Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City). — This is about habitual tardiness incurred by a court employee allegedly due to illness that she has long suffered from.
The Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported on September 10, 2012 that respondent Shirley V. De Guzman (respondent), Stenographer III, Branch 201, Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City incurred the following numbers of tardiness in the year 2011:
January — 10
June — 11
July — 10
August — 10
October — 10
November — 15
December — 12
Required to comment, respondent admitted her tardiness but attributes the same to her medical condition. She averred that she has long been suffering from vertigo, high blood pressure, hot flushes, vomiting and asthma. Whenever she suffers from the said illnesses, she is forced to stay home until she feels strong enough to commute from her home in Villamor Air Base, Pasay City, to her work station in Las Piñas City. Respondent begs for the Court's compassion. ADaSEH
In its Memorandum dated July 24, 2013, the OCA held the view that respondent's explanation does not justify her failure to report for work on time. Clearly, she fell short of the standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. It is a canon under the Constitution that a public office is a public trust. This canon includes the mandate for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment of such hours for the public service, because only by it may public servants recompense the Government and the people for shouldering the costs of maintaining the Judiciary. Accordingly, court officials and employees must at all times strictly observe official hours to inspire the public's respect for the justice system. 1 Thus, the OCA recommends that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
We agree.
Civil Service Memorandum Circular 23, Series of 1998, provides that an employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, 10 times a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year. There is no doubt therefore that respondent is guilty of habitual tardiness.
Section 52 (c) (4), Rule VI of Civil Service Circular 19, series of 1999 on the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service imposes the following penalty for tardiness: TCHcAE
1st Offense — Reprimand
2nd Offense — Suspension 1-30 days
3rd Offense — Dismissal
Considering that this is respondent's first offense, the penalty of reprimand is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS respondent Shirley V. De Guzman, Stenographer III, Branch 201, Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City and WARNS her that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. (Peralta, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., Acting Member, per Special Order 1541 [Revised] dated September 9, 2013.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the Second Semester of 2009, A.M. No. 2010-11-SC, March 15, 2011, 645 SCRA 309, 317.