THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-4048. March 9, 2020.][Formerly A.M. No. 19-06-155-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner,vs. CHRISTINE T. ALIWALAS, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, CALAMBA, LAGUNA, respondent.
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF CHRISTINE T. ALIWALAS, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 34, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALAMBA, LAGUNA
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 9, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-4048 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Christine T. Aliwalas, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Calamba, Laguna) [Formerly A.M. No. 19-06-155-RTC] (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Christine T. Aliwalas, Process Server, Branch 34, Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna). — Before the Court is an administrative matter involving the habitual tardiness of Christine T. Aliwalas (respondent), Process Server of the Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34 (RTC). HTcADC
The June 17, 2019 Report 1 of the Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), revealed that respondent was tardy twelve (12) times in April 2019, and twelve (12) times in May 2019.
In its July 2, 2019 1st Indorsement, 2 the OCA directed respondent to comment on the Report.
In her September 3, 2019 Comment, 3 respondent apologized for her tardiness. She stated that: she was enrolled in evening classes at the Laguna College of Business and Arts, taking up Bachelor in Elementary Education; in 2016, her father suffered a mild stroke and succumbed to severe gouty arthritis which left him bedridden; and every morning, she helped her mother take care of her father since they could not afford a caregiver.
In its December 10, 2019 Report, 4 the OCA recommended that respondent be reprimanded for her habitual tardiness and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
The Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, provides that "[any] employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year."
Under Section 50 (4) (F), Rule 10 of CSC Resolution No. 1701077 (2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), habitual tardiness is penalized as follows:
First Offense — Reprimand
Second Offense — Suspension for 1-30 days
Third Offense — Dismissal from the service
Based on the foregoing provisions, there is no question that respondent has been habitually tardy. The Court has read the explanation of the respondent but finds it insufficient to absolve her from administrative liability. The Court has consistently held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. 5
The Court has, time and again, pronounced that tardiness causes inefficiency and is prejudicial to public service. 6 Court officials and employees are enjoined to strictly observe official time in order to encourage public respect for the justice system. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. 7
By being habitually tardy, respondent fell short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with civil service, especially with the administration of justice. 8 In the case of Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed during the Second Semester of 2002 by the following Employees of this Court: Fe Malou B. Castelo, et al., 9 the Court elucidated:
By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people, who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. Thus, 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. 10
Considering that this is the first time that respondent violated the rule on habitual tardiness, the Court finds the penalty of reprimand appropriate.
WHEREFORE, respondent Christine T. Aliwalas, Process Server of the Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34, is found GUILTY of Habitual Tardiness. She is hereby REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 5.
3.Id. at 6-8.
4.Id. at 14-15.
5.Re: Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Pua, Jr., 669 Phil. 138, 141 (2011).
6.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 441 Phil. 240, 249 (2002).
7.Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mario J. Tamang, 480 Phil. 686, 690 (2004).
8.Re: Habitual Tardiness Incurred by Mr. Gideon M. Alibang, 476 Phil. 1, 5 (2004).
9. 456 Phil. 183 (2003).
10.Id. at 190.