SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-18-3885. October 15, 2018.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner,vs. MS. MARY ANGELIE M. KAYANAN, CLERK OF COURT III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, TARLAC CITY, TARLAC (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 17-03-46-MTCC — RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MS. MARY ANGELIE M. KAYANAN, CLERK OF COURT III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, TARLAC CITY, TARLAC), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 October 2018which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-18-3885 — Office of the Court Administrator versus Ms. Mary Angelie M. Kayanan, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tarlac City, Tarlac (Formerly A.M. No. 17-03-46-MTCC — Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Mary Angelie M. Kayanan, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tarlac City, Tarlac)
In a Report 1 dated March 22, 2017, Mr. Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) stated that respondent Ms. Mary Angelie M. Kayanan (respondent Kayanan), Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tarlac City, Tarlac, incurred tardiness in the following months of 2017:
January — 11 times
February — 12 times
In a 1st Indorsement 2 dated April 5, 2017, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva required respondent Kayanan to submit her comment on the Report within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
In her Comment/Letter 3 dated May 10, 2017, respondent Kayanan admitted her tardiness. Respondent Kayanan explained that her tardiness was due to the sudden departure of her household helper in December 2016, compelling the former to perform all household chores all by herself. She also had to bathe, dress and bring to school her five-year-old daughter. Respondent Kayanan added that she also had to fulfill her tasks as an officer of the Parent Teacher Association in her daughter's school.
Respondent Kayanan pleaded for the Court's benevolent consideration and committed to report for work on time to avoid repetition of the same violation.
After its evaluation, the OCA made the following recommendations in its Memorandum 4 dated June 18, 2018:
Based on the foregoing, Ms. Kayanan indeed violated the rules on punctuality. As a government employee, she is required to render not less than eight (8) hours work a day for five (5) days or a total of forty (40) hours work x x x a week, exclusive of time for lunch. She has therefore been remiss in this aspect, having incurred tardiness for two (2) consecutive months from January to February 2017. Hence, she has fallen short of the standard of conduct demanded of her as a court employee and as a civil servant, regardless of her reason for being late.
Under the Civil Service Rules, habitual tardiness is penalized with reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second and dismissal from the service for the third.
Being a first-time offender, the penalty of reprimand is proper. 5
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA. Respondent Kayanan 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. 6
Moreover, CSC MC No. 17, series of 2010 provides that:
Any 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 Penalties of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 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.
The Court thus sustains the recommendation of the OCA that respondent Kayanan should be reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition off the same or similar acts shall be dealt with severely by the Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Ms. Mary Angelie M. Kayanan, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tarlac City, Tarlac, GUILTY of habitual tardiness. She is hereby REPRIMANDED 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., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 2.
2.Id. at 5.
3.Id. at 11-13.
4.Id. at 15-16.
5.Id.
6.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 469 Phil. 534, 545-546 (2004), 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.