Office of the Court Administrator v. Javeñar

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-19-3945. April 3, 2019.](Formerly A.M. No. 18-04-35-MeTC — Re: Habitual Tardiness of Cyrus A. Javeñar, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City)

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.CYRUS A. JAVEÑAR, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39, QUEZON CITY (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 18-04-35-METC — RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF CYRUS A. JAVEÑAR, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39, QUEZON CITY)

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-19-3945 — Officeof the Court Administrator versus Cyrus A. Javeñar, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City (Formerly A.M. No. 18-04-35-MeTC — Re: Habitual Tardiness of Cyrus A. Javeñar, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City)

In a Report 1 dated March 1, 2018, Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), stated that respondent Cyrus A. Javeñar, (respondent Javeñar), Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 39, Quezon City, incurred tardiness in the following months of 2017:

August — 11 times

September — 11 times

In a 1st Indorsement 2 dated April 6, 2018, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva required respondent Javeñar to submit his comment on the Report within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

In his Comment/Letter 3 dated May 22, 2018, respondent Javeñar averred that he was tardy for work because he had to attend to his father while his mother sold vegetables at the Balintawak market early in the morning. Respondent Javeñar explained that his father had a stroke in April 2017 which left the latter paralyzed and unable to work. The hospitalization and rehabilitation of his father left them in debt. As the only breadwinner of the family, respondent Javeñar found it very difficult to make ends meet so his mother decided to sell vegetables at the Balintawak market in August and September 2017 to augment their finances. His mother would leave their house early in the morning and sell vegetables until 6:00 in the morning. Respondent Javeñar therefore had to stay with his father until his mother came back from the market. Respondent Javeñar pleaded for the Court's benevolent consideration given his family's dire situation.

After its evaluation, the OCA made the following recommendations in its Memorandum 4 dated September 27, 2018:

However, as above mentioned, in A.M. No. P-16-3588 (formerly A.M. No. 16-05-57-MeTC) Mr. Javeñar was already reprimanded for tardiness and warned against a repetition of the same or any similar act which shall be dealt with more severely. Relative thereto, public interest in an adept and honest judiciary dictates that notice of future harsher penalties should not be followed by another forewarning of the same kind, ad infinitum, but by discipline through appropriate penalties. 5 Thus, instead of another reprimand with warning, this Office recommends that Mr. Javeñar be meted a stiffer penalty of suspension of thirty (30) days.

Considering, however, that Mr. Javeñar is a Court Stenographer who actually discharges frontline functions and directly deals with the public as provided under Section 52 1 (b) 2017 RACCS, and to prevent any undue adverse effect on the public service 6 as the proceedings in his court may be disrupted in view of his suspension, this Office deems it proper to recommend that his penalty be converted to a fine.

Thus, the imposition of a fine in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), instead of a suspension is recommended, so that Mr. Javeñar can continue to discharge his assigned tasks, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. 7

The Court adopts the findings of the OCA except for the recommended penalty.

The Court has often held that, 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. 8 Inherent in this mandate is the observance of the 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. 9 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. 10

Respondent Javeñar is guilty of habitual tardiness as defined under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 23, Series of 1998 which provides that:

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.

Along this line, the Court has pronounced that habitual tardiness seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. The Court has ruled in this wise:

x x x 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. 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. 11

Moreover, CSC MC No. 17, Series of 2010 provides that "[a]ny officer or employee who is absent in the morning is considered to be tardy and is subject to the provisions on Habitual Tardiness."

Administrative Circular No. 1-99, entitled "Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and Employees," which took effect on February 1, 1999, states that:

As courts are temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must, at all times, be preserved and enhanced. In inspiring public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees must:

xxx xxx xxx

3. Strictly observe official time. x x x

Under Section 50 (F) (4), Rule 10 on Administrative Offenses and Penalties of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), 12 habitual tardiness is considered a light offense and is penalized as follows: reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second; and dismissal from the service for the third.

Moreover, under the 2017 RACCS, habitual tardiness is now classified as either a grave or light offense. It is considered a grave offense under Section 50 (B) (6), Rule 10 if the tardiness prejudiced the operations of the office. On the other hand, it remains a light offense under Rule 10, Section 50 (F) (4) if the case involves plain habitual tardiness.

In the absence of proof that the operations of the court were prejudiced, the case of respondent Javeñar falls under the category of plain tardiness, a light offense.

In several cases, the Court has mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons. 13 It has also considered length of service in the judiciary; the respondent's acknowledgment of his infractions and feelings of remorse; and family circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty. 14 As well, the Court has also ruled that where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only because of the law's concern for the workingman, but also the welfare of his family. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner. 15

In the case of Contreras v. Mirando, 16 the Court fined respondent clerk therein in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for frequent unexplained absences, reporting to work drunk, neglect of duty and asking money from litigants in exchange for small favors. In the present case, the Court finds that a fine in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) is commensurate under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Cyrus A. Javeñar, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Quezon City, GUILTY of habitual tardiness and, accordingly, he is FINED in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.

SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 2.

2.Id. at 5.

3.Id. at 6-7.

4.Id. at 10-12.

5.Id. at 11, citing Poso v. Mijares, 436 Phil. 295, 309-310 (2002).

6.Id. at 11-12, citing Aquino v. Lavadia, 417 Phil. 770, 777 (2001) and Angeles v. Base, 443 Phil. 723, 731 (2003).

7.Id. at 12.

8.Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Fernando P. Pascual, 507 Phil. 546, 548-549 (2005).

9.Id. at 549.

10.Id., citing Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed during the First and Second Semesters of 2003, 469 Phil. 534, 546 (2004).

11.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness during the First and Second Semesters of 2003, id. at 545-546, citing 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Sec. 1; Administrative Circular No. 2-99, "STRICT OBSERVANCE OF WORKING HOURS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR ABSENTEEISM AND TARDINESS," January 15, 1999; and Administrative Circular No. 1-99, "ENHANCING THE DIGNITY OF COURTS AS TEMPLES OF JUSTICE AND PROMOTING RESPECT FOR THEIR OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES," January 15, 1999.

12. CSC Resolution No. 1701077 promulgated on July 3, 2017.

13.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness during the First and Second Semesters of 2003, supra note 10, at 547.

14.Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty against Elizabeth Ting, 502 Phil. 264, 279-281 (2005).

15.Almira v. B.F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc., 157 Phil. 110, 121-122 (1974).

16. 345 Phil. 854 (1997).