FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-4051. February 12, 2020.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner,vs. COURT STENOGRAPHER III SINFRONIA V. ARABIA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 72, ANTIPOLO CITY, RIZAL, respondent.
HABITUAL TARDINESS OF COURT STENOGRAPHER III SINFRONIA V. ARABIA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 72, ANTIPOLO CITY, RIZAL
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 12, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-4051 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Court Stenographer III Sinfronia V. Arabia, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City, Rizal) [formerly A.M. No. 19-01-11-RTC (Habitual Tardiness of Court Stenographer III Sinfronia V. Arabia, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City, Rizal)]
In a Report 1 dated January 11, 2019, Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), stated that respondent Sinfronia V. Arabia, Court Stenographer III, Branch 72, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo City, Rizal, had incurred tardiness seventeen (17) times in August 2018 2 and nineteen (19) times in October 2018. 3
On January 11, 2019, OCA Chief of Office Caridad A. Pabello referred 4 the matter to the Legal Office of the OCA for appropriate action. She also informed the OCA that Arabia had been previously charged with the same offense and the case was referred to OCA under Indorsement 5 dated October 10, 2018. HTcADC
Responding to the Court's directive 6 to comment on the charges against her, respondent filed her Comment 7 dated September 6, 2019. She adopted the same reasons she gave in her Comment 8 in a similar case (A.M. No. 18-10-224-RTC) earlier filed against her. She explained that her tardiness was unintentional and mainly due to health problems. She had been dealing with, and continues to suffer from, pain, dizziness, hypertension, and other inconveniences caused by her pre-menstrual syndrome and anteverted uterus with subserous myoma. Despite her tardiness, she had not been remiss in her duty as Court Stenographer III. In fact, she obtained a very satisfactory rating for the semesters July to December 2018 9 and January to June 2019. 10
The Report and Recommendation of the OCA
The OCA 11 found that Arabia had violated the rule on tardiness by reporting for work late almost every day for two (2) months in a semester (August and October, 2018). It also noted that Arabia had already been meted the penalty of reprimand for the same offense under Resolution dated June 3, 2019 in P-193946 (formerly A.M. No. 18-10-224-RTC). It, thus, recommended 12 that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and Arabia be found guilty of habitual tardiness and given the penalty of suspension of thirty (30) days with stern warning that a commission of the same or any similar offense for the third time may warrant her dismissal from the service.
Ruling
The Court adopts the factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendations of the OCA.
Court officials and employees, like other public servants, are expected to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. 13 Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 considers any employee 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. 14
There is no question that Arabia had been habitually tardy for two (2) months in a semester. More specifically, seventeen (17) times in August 2018 and nineteen (19) times in October 2018. Such infraction cannot be countenanced as it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. 15 Neither can the reasons offered by Arabia justify her habitual tardiness. For the Court has consistently ruled that moral obligations, the performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. 16
Habitual tardiness may either be a light or grave offense. Section 50, paragraph F (4), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) classifies habitual tardiness as a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense. However, if the habitual tardiness in reporting for duty has prejudiced the operations in the office, the same is considered a grave offense under Section 50, paragraph B (6), Rule 10 of the 2017 RACCS. 17
Here, Arabia's habitual tardiness is only a light offense there being no proof that the same has adversely affected the operations of her office. It appearing that this is already Arabia's second offense and she had been previously reprimanded for her habitual tardiness, the penalty of suspension for thirty (30) days is in order. 18
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Court Stenographer III Sinfronia V. Arabia guilty of habitual tardiness for the months of August and October 2018. She is SUSPENDED from service for thirty (30) days, with STERN WARNING that the commission of the same or any similar offense for the third time may warrant her dismissal from the service.
The Report dated January 11, 2019 of Mr. Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge is RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Court Stenographer III Sinfronia V. Arabia. aScITE
SO ORDERED." J. Reyes, Jr., J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 4.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. at 6.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Id. at 8.
8.Id. at 9-10.
9.Id. at 12-13.
10.Id. at 14-15.
11. Through Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva.
12.Rollo, pp. 20-21.
13.Office of the Court Administrator v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-19-3932, March 27, 2019.
14.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 456 Phil. 183, 190 (2003).
15.Id.
16.Supra note 13.
17.Office of the Court Administrator v. Jornacion, A.M. No. P-19-3943, April 10, 2019.
18.Id.