THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3933. March 27, 2019.][Formerly A.M. No. 18-07-67-MCTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.ERIKA B. CLARK, CLERK II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BOTOLAN-CABANGAN, ZAMBALES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 27, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3933 [formerly A.M. No. 18-07-67-MCTC] (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Erika B. Clark, Clerk II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Botolan-Cabangan, Zambales). — For resolution is the Report 1 dated July 11, 2018 of Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), recommending that Erika B. Clark (respondent), Clerk II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Botolan-Cabangan, Zambales, be reprimanded for incurring tardiness in April 2018 and May 2018.
In a 1st Indorsement 2 dated July 26, 2018, the OCA required the respondent to Comment on the Report. In her Comment 3 dated September 3, 2018, the respondent admitted her tardiness and explained as follows:
I sincerely apologize for the habitual tardiness observed. I admit that I have difficulty taking a ride from our house going to work. It is for that reason that I frequently experienced migraines and headaches caused by stress in the morning that made it hard for me to get up early. I know that it is our sworn duty to come early but it was a mistake that I incurred lates. I promise that I will be a more responsible employee of the court. 4
In its Evaluation and Recommendation 5 dated September 27, 2018, the OCA found that the respondent's tardiness, twenty-four (24) times in April 2018 and twenty-four (24) times in May 2018, falls under the category of plain tardiness, a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense. Hence, the OCA recommended the penalty of reprimand, to wit:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that: cHECAS
(1) the Report dated 11 July 2018 of Mr. Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against respondent Erika B. Clark, Clerk II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Botolan-Cabangan, Zambales; and
(2) respondent Clerk Clark be found GUILTY of habitual tardiness for the period April and May 2018 and accordingly REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty from the Court. 6 (Emphases in the original)
After a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and the conclusion of the OCA that the respondent's tardiness is considered a light offense, which is punishable by the penalty of reprimand for the first offense.
The basis of the offense is Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998, defining habitual tardiness as follows:
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.
The Court agrees with the OCA that the respondent indeed violated the rule on tardiness and that her explanation does not deserve consideration.
As an employee of the judiciary, the respondent failed to live up to the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice, 7viz.:
By being habitually tardy, these employees have fallen short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. 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. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. 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. 8 (Citations omitted)
Furthermore, the excuses offered by the respondent are not the kind that would justify her tardiness. The Court has previously held 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. 9
No less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust. 10 Inherent in this mandate is the observance and efficient use of every moment of the prescribed office hours to serve the public, 11 if only to expiate the Government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. 12 Thus, to inspire public interest 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. 13 The Court cannot countenance such infraction as it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. 14
Under Section 50, paragraph F (4), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, habitual tardiness is classified as a light offense and is 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. In this case, considering that this is the respondent's first offense, the penalty of reprimand is in order.
WHEREFORE, respondent Erika B. Clark, Clerk II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Botolan-Cabangan, Zambales, is hereby REPRIMANDED for her habitual tardiness and WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. AHDacC
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on wellness leave; Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 5.
3.Id. at 6.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 8-9.
6.Id. at 9.
7.Office of the Court Administrator v. Barnedo, 483 Phil. 200, 202 (2004).
8.Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 1st Semester of 2007: Ms. Marivic Azurin, et al., 596 Phil. 133, 146 (2009).
9.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 456 Phil. 183, 190-191 (2003).
10. 1984 CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Section 1.
11.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 484 Phil. 480, 485 (2004).
12.Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Cecilia L. Asilo, 509 Phil. 592, 593-594 (2005).
13.Re: Habitual Tardiness by Mr. Gideon M. Alibang, 476 Phil. 1, 5-6 (2004).
14.Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao, 509 Phil. 83, 86 (2005).