THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3982. August 12, 2019.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.REYNALDO B. HILBERO, JR., SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 92, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALAMBA, LAGUNA [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 19-01-16-RTC IN RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF REYNALDO B. HILBERO, JR., SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 92, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALAMBA, LAGUNA], respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 12, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3982 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reynaldo B. Hilbero, Jr., Sheriff IV, Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna [Formerly A.M. No. 19-01-16-RTC In Re: Habitual Tardiness of Reynaldo B. Hilbero, Jr., Sheriff IV, Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna]). — This administrative matter concerns the habitual tardiness of Reynaldo B. Hilbero, Jr. (Sheriff Hilbero), Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 92.
In his Report 1 dated January 21, 2019, Mr. Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), stated that Sheriff Hilbero incurred the following tardiness:
September 2018 — 13 times
October 2018 — 16 times
December 2018 — 11 times
In a 1st Indorsement 2 dated January 29, 2019, the OCA required Sheriff Hilbero to Comment on the Report relative to his habitual tardiness.
Sheriff Hilbero explained that he incurred so many tardiness during the months of September, October and December because he had to attend to some household chores, such as the preparation of his family's breakfast and his children's necessities before leaving for their respective schools. These tasks were previously performed by his wife until she gained partial employment in the evening to augment their family income. He stated that his wife worked in the City Government of Calamba under the Department of Social Welfare and Development as a Day Care Teacher. After her day job, she would proceed to the Shelter for the Aged and Abandoned Children to do her part-time job until 6:00 a.m. For this reason, Sheriff Hilbero was tasked to do the morning chores. 3
The OCA found that Sheriff Hilbero violated the rules on tardiness and that the excuses he offered are not the kind that would justify his tardiness. Thus, it recommended the penalty of reprimand, as follows:
RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
(1) the Report dated 21 January 2019 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 Reynaldo B. Hilbero, Jr., Sheriff IV, Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna; and
(2) Sheriff Hilbero, Jr. be found GUILTY of habitual tardiness during the months of September, October and December 2018 and be REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall be dealt with severely by the Court. 4
The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
The Court has previously held that "moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient causes to excuse habitual tardiness." 5
Moreover, Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998, defines habitual tardiness as follows:
Any employee shall be 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.
Given the foregoing, the Court agrees with the OCA that Sheriff Hilbero violated the rule on tardiness. Furthermore, his explanation does not deserve consideration and cannot exempt him from administrative penalty.
As an employee of the Judiciary, Sheriff Hilbero failed to live up to the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice, 6viz.:
By being habitually tardy, an employee falls 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. 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. 7
No less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust. 8 Inherent in this mandate is the observance and efficient use of every moment of the prescribed office hours to serve the public, 9 if only to expiate the Government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. 10 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. 11 The Court cannot countenance such infraction as it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. 12
Under Section 50, paragraph f, 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 Sheriff Hilbero's first offense, the penalty of reprimand is in order.
WHEREFORE, Reynaldo B. Hilbero, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna, Branch 92, is hereby REPRIMANDED for his habitual tardiness and WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 6.
3. Comment dated March 22, 2019; id. at 7.
4.Id. at 10-11.
5.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties, 456 Phil. 183, 188 (2003).
6.Office of the Court Administrator v. Barnedo, 483 Phil. 200 (2004).
7.Id. at 202.
8. 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article XI, Section 1.
9.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 484 Phil. 480, 485 (2004).
10.Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Cecilia L. Asilo, 509 Phil. 592, 593-594 (2005).
11.Re: Habitual Tardiness Incurred by Gideon M. Alibang, 476 Phil. 1, 6 (2004).
12.Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao, 509 Phil. 83, 86 (2005).