FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-4028. January 6, 2020.](Formerly A.M. No. 19-01-39-RTC — Re: Habitual Tardiness of Jamie Anne A. Flores, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite)
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.CLERK III JAMIE ANNE A. FLORES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 6, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-4028 — OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR versus CLERK III JAMIE ANNE A. FLORES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE (Formerly A.M. No. 19-01-39-RTC — Re: Habitual Tardiness of Jamie Anne A. Flores, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite)
In a Report 1 dated January 24, 2019, Ryan U. Lopez, the Officer-in-Charge of the Employees' Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) stated that Jamie Anne A. Flores (Flores), Clerk III, Branch 20, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite, whose official working hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., had incurred the following instances of tardiness: (i) 14 times in October 2018; (ii) 10 times in November 2018; and (iii) 12 times in December 2018. HTcADC
The OCA then issued a 1st Indorsement 2 dated February 1, 2019 referring the said Report to Flores for comment. In a Comment 3 dated April 3, 2019, Flores admitted her tardiness and claimed that this was due to the marital problems she had with her husband. She stated that during said months, they were having quarrels which even affected their daughter as well as her in-laws. Admitting her mistakes, she appealed to the Court's understanding and assured the Court that she was already taking steps to ensure that her marital/family problems would not interfere with her profession.
In a Report 4 dated September 13, 2019, the OCA found that Flores had violated the rule on tardiness and her explanation did not exempt her from the corresponding administrative penalties. Hence, it recommended that Flores be found guilty of habitual tardiness and be imposed the corresponding penalty. The Court agrees with the OCA's findings.
Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998, provides:
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.
Further, in A.M. No. 00-06-09-SC, 5 the Court ruled that by being habitually tardy, the concerned court employees have fallen short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the civil service, especially the administration of justice since punctuality being a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible; and family conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.
Indeed, due to her habitual tardiness, Flores did not meet the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. By reason of the nature and functions of the judiciary, its employees must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Accordingly, court officials and employees are behooved to strictly observe official time in order to inspire public respect for the justice system.
Habitual tardiness is classified as either a grave or light offense under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. 6 If the tardiness prejudices the operations of the office, it is a grave offense. On the other hand, if it is just plain habitual tardiness, it is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense. Considering that there is no proof that the operations of the court were prejudiced, Flores' habitual tardiness only amounts to a light offense. The penalty of reprimand is justified because this is only her first infraction relating to habitual tardiness. CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds that JAMIE ANNE A. FLORES, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, is GUILTY of habitual tardiness during the months of October, November and December 2018 and should be 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.
The instant case is RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 7.
3.Id. at 8.
4.Id. at 12-13.
5.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness committed during the First Semester of 2004, 484 Phil. 480 (2004).
6. 2017 RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Section 50. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave and light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
xxx xxx xxx
B. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense:
xxx xxx xxx
6. Habitual tardiness in reporting for duty causing prejudice to the operations of the office;
xxx xxx xxx
F. The following light offenses are 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:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Habitual Tardiness[.]