THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3943. April 10, 2019.][Formerly A.M. No. 18-01-20-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. MR. RODRIGO P. JORNACION, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 152, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY (IN RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MR. RODRIGO P. JORNACION), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3943 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Rodrigo P. Jornacion, Process Server, Branch 152, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City) [Formerly A.M. No. 18-01-20-RTC] (In Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mr. Rodrigo P. Jornacion). — The Court resolves to:
(1) NOTE the Report dated January 28, 2019 of the Office of the Court Administrator on the habitual tardiness of Mr. Rodrigo P. Jornacion, Process Server, Branch 152, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City; and
(2) RE-DOCKET the instant administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter.
In a Report 1 dated January 19, 2018, Mr. Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), transmitted the information that Mr. Rodrigo P. Jornacion (Jornacion), Process Server, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 152, had incurred tardiness as follows:
|
Month/Year |
Number of Times Tardy |
|
January 2017 |
13 times |
|
February 2017 |
12 times |
|
March 2017 |
14 times |
|
April 2017 |
11 times |
|
May 2017 |
13 times |
|
September 2017 |
15 times |
|
October 2017 |
14 times |
|
November 2017 |
15 times |
|
December 2017 |
15 times |
Photocopies of Jornacion's time cards for the foregoing months were attached to the aforementioned report. 2 AScHCD
On January 19, 2018, OCA Chief of Office Caridad A. Pabello referred the matter to Atty. Wilhelmina D. Geronga of the Legal Office of the OCA for appropriate action. 3
The OCA, in its 1st Indorsement 4 dated January 29, 2018, required Jornacion to comment on the report charging him with habitual tardiness. Jornacion, however, failed to file his comment despite receipt of the indorsement. Thus, in a Tracer 5 dated August 9, 2018, the OCA reiterated its directive for Jornacion to comply within five (5) days from notice. The OCA, however, did not receive any compliance from him.
As shown by the records, Jornacion was already found habitually tardy and was reprimanded for his first infraction of habitual tardiness in accordance with the Court's Resolution dated January 22, 2018 in A.M. No. P-18-3805 (OCA v. Process Server Rodrigo P. Jornacion, RTC, Branch 152, Pasig City). 6
Furthermore, records show that Jornacion died on June 22, 2018, as evidenced by his Certificate of Death 7 with Registry No. 2018-359.
The OCA, in its Report 8 dated January 28, 2019, submitted its recommendation, thus:
1. the Report dated 19 January 2018 of Mr. Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Mr. Rodrigo P. Jornacion, Process Server, Branch 152, Pasig City; and
2. Mr. Jornacion be found GUILTY of habitual tardiness and be FINED in the amount equivalent to his one (1) month salary to be deducted from whatever monetary benefits he may be entitled to under the law. 9
Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA.
The Civil Service Commission, in its Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, promulgated the rules and guidelines on absenteeism and tardiness of public employees, to wit:
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.
Based on the above provision, it is clear that Jornacion had been habitually tardy for having been late for the three quarters of the year 2017. In the first quarter of 2017, he had been late more than ten times for each of the three consecutive months of January, February and March. In the second quarter, he had been late more than ten times for the two consecutive months of April and May. In the last quarter of the same year, Jornacion incurred tardiness more than ten times for the consecutive months of October, November and December.
Notably, Jornacion likewise failed to justify his infractions. Notwithstanding the receipt of the Indorsement dated January 29, 2018, directing him to comment on the report, he failed to comply and merely disregarded the opportunity to explain his side.
Like other public servants, court officials and employees are expected to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. 10 By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees 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. 11 As an employee of the judiciary, Jornacion failed to live up to the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. AcICHD
Habitual tardiness is classified as a light offense under Section 50, paragraph F (4), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) 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. The Court, likewise, notes that Section 50, paragraph B (6) of the 2017 RACCS also classifies habitual tardiness as a grave offense if reporting late for duty has prejudiced the operations in the office. In this case, however, no proof was adduced to show that Jornacion's tardiness adversely affected the operations of his office.
Moreover, as Jornacion was previously reprimanded by the Court for his habitual tardiness, the Court agrees with the OCA that the appropriate penalty should be suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days, pursuant to the 2017 RACCS. Considering, however, that the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed in view of Jornacion's untimely demise, as well as the other circumstances of the case, the penalty of FINE equivalent to his salary for one (1) month is imposed upon him. This shall be deducted from whatever monetary benefits he may be entitled to under the law.
WHEREFORE, RODRIGO P. JORNACION, Process Server, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 152, is found GUILTY of habitual tardiness. Accordingly, a FINE equivalent to his one month salary, to be deducted from whatever monetary benefits he may be entitled to under the law, is hereby imposed upon him.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 4-12.
3.Id. at 2.
4. Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino and OCA Chief of Office, Legal Office, Wilhelmina D. Geronga; id. at 14.
5. Signed by Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva; id. at 13.
6.Id. at 17.
7.Id. at 15.
8. Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Assistant Court Administrator Lilian C. Barribal-Co; id. at 16-18.
9.Id. at 18.
10.Re: Habitual Tardiness of Sayam, Clerk III, RTC, Br. 5, Cebu City, 544 Phil. 693, 696 (2007), citing Administrative Circular No. 1-99, "Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and Employees," dated January 15, 1999.
11. Id., citing Administrative Circular No. 2-99, "Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness," dated January 15, 1999.