FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-16-3557. September 21, 2016.]
[Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-63-MeTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. CLERK OF COURT V, ATTY. MONA LISA A. BUENCAMINO, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 21, 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-16-3557 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Clerk of Court V, Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City) [formerly A.M. No. 15-06-63-MeTC] (Habitual Tardiness of Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino, Clerk of Court V, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City). — This case pertains to the Report 1 dated 26 May 2015 sent by Mr. Ryan U. Lopez, officer-in-charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). According to the report, Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino, whose official working hours were 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., incurred tardiness as follows:
| January 2014 | 18 times |
| February 2014 | 19 times |
| March 2014 | 19 times |
| April 2014 | 15 times |
| May 2014 | 21 times |
| January 2015 | 11 times |
| February 2015 | 14 times |
| March 2015 | 15 times |
| April 2015 | 11 times 2 |
In its 1st Indorsement 3 dated 9 June 2015, OCA referred the matter to Atty. Buencamino and directed her to submit her Comment on the Report within 10 days from receipt of the Indorsement. 4
Atty. Buencamino filed her Comment 5 dated 4 August 2015. She stated therein that there had been an increase in office workload due to the establishment of additional courts; the retirement, resignation or termination from work of some court personnel; and the appointment of a new executive judge. 6 She further stated that she had worked beyond office hours to finish her work, even if she was exhausted, sick with diabetes and already 58 years old at the time of the filing of her Comment. 7 She prayed that the Comment be duly noted, her tardiness offset by the excess time she had worked, and the case against her dismissed. 8
THE OCA RECOMMENDATION
OCA found that Atty. Buencamino had violated the rule on tardiness by actually reporting for work late almost every day for the first semesters of 2014 and 2015. 9 While she indeed rendered overtime work every day to compensate for her late arrivals, this measure was deemed by OCA as no reason for her to violate the official hours of work prescribed for court employees. 10 It noted that she had been twice reprimanded for the same offense in a Resolution dated 23 November 2011 in A.M. No. P-11-3016 (formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3467-P) and in another Resolution dated 10 July 2015 in A.M. No. P-15-3346 (formerly A.M. No. 14-3-34-MeTC). 11 However, it also noted some mitigating circumstances, 12 which included her age (58 at the time of the filing of the Comment), health condition (diabetes), length of service (28 years as of the filing of the Comment), heavy workload, 13 and understaffed office. 14 For that reason, despite this being her third commission of the same offense, OCA recommended that she be given the penalty of suspension of 15 days with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. 15 CAIHTE
OUR RULING
In a long line of cases, this Court has oft-reiterated the exacting ethical standards imposed upon court officials and employees. Accordingly, it has meted out appropriate sanctions for tardiness, whether habitual or not. 16 We see no reason to rule otherwise absent any compelling reason.
This is the third time that Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino has committed habitual tardiness. 17 While dismissal from the service is the applicable penalty, 18 we likewise consider prevailing jurisprudence relative to court employees who have similarly thrice committed and been found guilty of habitual tardiness, 19 as well as various mitigating circumstances applied in tempering the applicable penalty of dismissal. 20 Hence, despite this being Atty. Buencamino's third commission of the same offense, we note the OCA recommendation to consider her age (58 years old at the time of the filing of the Comment), health condition (diabetes), length of service (28 years as of the filing of the Comment), heavy workload, 21 and understaffed 22 office as mitigating circumstances.
However, the imposition of the fifteen-day suspension as a penalty per OCA recommendation is not a sufficient deterrent. We take into account OCA's observations that the explanations invoked by respondent for the third time were "the same nagging reason[s] she used for her previous tardiness" 23 and that "her propensity to justify her tardiness has become more apparent." 24 Thus we are compelled to increase the penalty of suspension from fifteen (15) days as recommended by OCA to sixty (60) days, in order to provide a stronger deterrent for respondent to refrain from committing the same offense in the future.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to NOTE (1) the Report 25 dated 26 May 2015 of Officer-in-Charge Ryan U. Lopez, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator; (2) the Comment 26 dated 4 August 2015 filed by Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino, Clerk of Court V, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Caloocan City; and (3) the Report 27 of OCA.
The Court further resolves (1) that the Report submitted by Mr. Ryan U. Lopez be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino; and (2) that Atty. Buencamino be SUSPENDED for sixty (60) days effective upon her receipt of a copy of this resolution, with a FINAL WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 2.
2. Id. at 3-11.
3. Id. at 12.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 13-16.
6. Id. at 14-15.
7. Id. at 15-16.
8. Id. at 16.
9. Id. at 18.
10. Id. at 19.
11. Id. at 17.
12. Id. at 18.
13. Atty. Buencamino claimed that her time would be devoted to entertaining Small Claims Cases litigants; explaining the procedure to them and counterchecking the forms submitted before notarizing them; reviewing (and signing, if applicable) various documents (disbursement vouchers; attachments for the withdrawals of cash and supersedeas bonds; certification of surety bonds; sheriff's travel expenses and estimated expenses for the implementation of writs of execution; list of cases for raffle; notices of filing fees, of mediation fees and of payment of filing fees for the civil aspect of estafa); counterchecking documents for submission to the Supreme Court's Office of the Court Administrator (rollo, p. 15); and reporting to the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva from January to May 2014 as a resource person (rollo, p. 14), among others.
14. Atty. Buencamino claimed that the plantilla for the nine existing courts remained the same from the original three courts, and that only in 2015 did the Office of the Court Administrator issue the appointments of additional personnel (rollo, p. 14). She stated further that while one Clerk III assumed duty on 2 March 2015, one Records Officer II on 10 July 2015, and one Clerk III on 3 August 2015, two personnel had been suspended as of the filing of her Comment; and that the acting Executive Judge would not sign the documents for disbursement until OCA issued his appointment on 17 February 2015 as the new Executive Judge in lieu of the then Executive Judge who had been promoted to the Regional Trial Court (rollo, pp. 14 and 15). The refusal allegedly led to the piling up of documents for his signature (rollo, p. 15).
15. Rollo, p. 19.
16. Basco v. Gregorio, 315 Phil. 681 (1995) cited in Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the Second Semester of 2009, 660 Phil. 608 (2011); Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the First Semester of 2007, 596 Phil. 133 (2009); Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the First Semester of 2005, 527 Phil. 1 (2005); Legaspi v. Montero, 496 Phil. 46 (2005).
17. She was first reprimanded in the Resolution dated 23 November 2011 in A.M. No. P-11-3016 (formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3467-P) and again in the Resolution dated 10 July 2015 in A.M. No. P-15-3346 (formerly A.M. No. 14-3-34-MeTC) (rollo, p. 17).
18. Under Sec. 52 (C) (4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows: first offense, reprimand; second offense, suspension for 1 to 30 days; and third offense, dismissal from the service (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ma. Socorro E. Arnaez, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Branch 18, Cebu City, 507 Phil. 581 [2005]).
19. Lutgarda E. de Leon, two months (Re: Habitual Tardiness First Semester 2002, 440 Phil. 349 [2002]); Fe Malou B. Castelo, Mercedita B. Costales, Nora B. Ang, Wilfredo Florendo and Lourdes Lorico, three months (Re: Imposition of Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2000, 441 Phil. 340 [2002]); Susan Belando, 30 days (Re: Habitual Tardiness Second Semester 2002, 456 Phil. 183 [2003]); Renato Labay and Albert Semilla, 10 days (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Court Employees in 2003, 469 Phil. 534 [2004]); Rosemarie B. Pe, 20 days (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Rosemarie B. Pe, 483 Phil. 120 [2004]); Mario J. Tamang, 15 days (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mario J. Tamang, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig City, 480 Phil. 686 [2004]); Glenn A. Javeñar, 20 days (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Glenn A. Javeñar, MeTC-OCC, Quezon City, 482 Phil. 728 [2004]); Eutiquia Ramirez, 15 days (Re: Imposition of Penalties for Habitual Tardiness During the Second Semester of 2004, 502 Phil. 413 [2005]); Fernando P. Pascual, 10 days (Re: Supreme Court Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 2nd Semester of 2005, 533 Phil. 272 [2006]); Maria Teresa P. Olipas, 15 days (Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 1st Semester of 2007, 596 Phil. 133 [2009]).
20. Lutgarda E. de Leon cited as reason her attending to the needs of her 92-year-old blind mother (Re: Habitual Tardiness First Semester 2002, supra); Fe Malou B. Castelo, severe sore throat constantly accompanied by fever and consequently tonsillectomy, albeit belatedly, due to financial constraints; Mercedita B. Costales, insomnia; Nora B. Ang, physical therapy of left shoulder and being at the menopausal stage, as well as the heavy traffic congestion from home to work; Wilfredo Florendo, no explanation; and Lourdes Lorico, the heavy traffic congestion from home to work and attending to the needs of her four children (Re: Imposition of Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2000, supra); Susan Belando, attending to the needs of her four children as a single parent (Re: Habitual Tardiness Second Semester 2002, supra); Renato Labay, bringing her daughter to school every day and heavy rain; and Albert Semilla, personal problems (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Court Employees in 2003, supra); Rosemarie B. Pe, delicate condition due to pregnancy (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Rosemarie B. Pe, supra); Mario J. Tamang, minor skin asthma and 20 years in the government (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mario J. Tamang, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig City, supra); Glenn A. Javeñar, attending to the needs of his sick 2-year-old son (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Glenn A. Javeñar, MeTC-OCC, Quezon City, supra); Eutiquia Ramirez, rendition of half-day work on some days (Re: Imposition of Penalties for Habitual Tardiness During the Second Semester of 2004, supra); Fernando P. Pascual, the heavy traffic congestion and lack of sleep because he would sell balut at night (Re: Supreme Court Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 2nd Semester of 2005, supra); Maria Teresa P. Olipas, attending to the needs of her two daughters as a single parent (Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 1st Semester of 2007, A supra).
21. Atty. Buencamino claimed that her time would be devoted to entertaining Small Claims Cases litigants; explaining the procedure to them and counterchecking the forms submitted before notarizing them; reviewing (and signing, if applicable) various documents (disbursement vouchers; attachments for the withdrawals of cash and supersedeas bonds; certification of surety bonds; sheriff's travel expenses and estimated expenses for the implementation of writs of execution; list of cases for raffle; notices of filing fees, of mediation fees and of payment of filing fees for the civil aspect of estafa); counterchecking documents for submission to the Supreme Court's Office of the Court Administrator (rollo, p. 15); and reporting to the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva from January to May 2014 as a resource person (rollo, p. 14), among others.
22. Atty. Buencamino claimed that the plantilla for the nine existing courts remained the same from the original three courts, and that only in 2015 did the Office of the Court Administrator issue the appointments of additional personnel (rollo, p. 14). She stated further that while one Clerk III assumed duty on 2 March 2015, one Records Officer II on 10 July 2015, and one Clerk III on 3 August 2015, two personnel had been suspended as of the filing of her Comment; and that the acting Executive Judge would not sign the documents for disbursement until OCA issued his appointment on 17 February 2015 as the new Executive Judge in lieu of the then Executive Judge who had been promoted to the Regional Trial Court (rollo, pp. 14 and 15). The refusal allegedly led to the piling up of documents for his signature (rollo, p. 15).
23. Rollo, p. 18.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 2.
26. Id. at 13-16.
27. Id. at 17-19.