SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-16-3560. October 5, 2016.]
[Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-178-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. MARIVIC O. CREDO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 41, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DUMAGUETE CITY, NEGROS ORIENTAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 October 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-16-3560 [Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-178-RTC] — (Office of the Court Administrator v. Marivic O. Credo, Court Stenographer III, Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental)
In its Report of Habitual Tardiness, 1 dated May 25, 2015, the Employees' Leave Division (ELD), Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), stated that respondent Marivic O. Credo (Credo), Court Stenographer III, Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, incurred tardiness for the following months in 2015:
| January 2015 | 14 times |
| March 2015 | 17 times |
In the Indorsement, 2 dated June 15, 2015, the OCA directed Credo to submit her comment on the report.
In her Comment, 3 dated August 24, 2015, Credo attributed her tardiness to her menopausal symptoms to which she had difficulty adjusting. She claimed that her predicament was compounded by the distance between her home and her work place, which was more or less fifteen (15) kilometers. Credo apologized for her tardiness and assured the Court that her infraction would not happen again.
The OCA Recommendation
In its Report, 4 dated August 5, 2016, the OCA recommended that Credo be found guilty of habitual tardiness and be reprimanded, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. The OCA opined that Credo violated Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, because of her tardiness ten (10) times a month for at least two months in a semester. It stated that Credo's traffic and health problems could not exonerate her from administrative liability.
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees and adopts the recommendation of the OCA.
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, categorically provides that "[a]ny 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."
In this case, Credo incurred tardiness more than ten (10) times a month in January and March 2015. Based on the foregoing, Credo committed habitual tardiness.
The explanation proffered by Credo, her health problems and traffic woes, cannot relieve her. In Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Uri, 5 the Court held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns were not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. HSAcaE
To reiterate, all government officials and employees are accountable at all times to the people and must exercise utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. They must give every minute of their prescribed official time in the service to the public and must work for every centavo paid to them by the government. This duty calls for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time for public service, if only to recompense the government and, ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. 6
Section 46, paragraph F (4), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides for the following penalties for habitual tardiness:
| First Offense | - | Reprimand |
| Second Offense | - | Suspension for 1 to 30 days |
| Third Offense | - | Dismissal |
As this is the first offense of Credo for habitual tardiness, reprimand is the appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, Marivic O. Credo, Court Stenographer III, Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, is found GUILTY of habitual tardiness and is REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 2.
2. Id. at 4.
3. Id. at 5-6.
4. Id. at 7-8.
5. 670 Phil. 1, 5 (2011).
6. Re: Habitual Tardiness of Cesare Sales, A.M. No. P-13-3171, January 28, 2014, 714 SCRA 601, 609.