FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-4036. January 15, 2020.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. CLERK OF COURT III JONATHAN F. LAZARO, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 98, Mandaluyong City (Formerly A.M. No. 19-04-23-MeTC — Re: Habitual Tardiness of Clerk of Court III Jonathan F. Lazaro, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 98, Mandaluyong City), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 15, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-4036 — OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR versus CLERK OF COURT III JONATHAN F. LAZARO, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 98, Mandaluyong City (Formerly A.M. No. 19-04-23-MeTC — Re: Habitual Tardiness of Clerk of Court III Jonathan F. Lazaro, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 98, Mandaluyong City)
In a Report 1 dated April 15, 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 Jonathan F. Lazaro (Lazaro), Clerk of Court III, Branch 98, Metropolitan Trial Court, Mandaluyong City, whose official working hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., had incurred the following instances of tardiness: (i) 16 times in January 2018; (ii) 12 times in February 2018; (iii) 14 times in March 2018; (iv) 15 times in April 2018; (v) 14 times in July 2018; (vi) 14 times in August 2018; (vii) 14 times in September 2018; (viii) 14 times in October 2018; and (ix) 12 times in November 2018. HTcADC
The OCA then issued a 1st Indorsement 2 dated May 10, 2019 referring the said Report to Lazaro for comment. In a Comment 3 dated June 13, 2019, Lazaro admitted that his working schedule is from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but he said that he had honestly believed that there was a 15-minute grace period, as can be seen in his Daily Time Records showing his consistent arrival in the office between 8:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. Had he been given proper notice of his infractions, he could have immediately adjusted his time and corrected his mistake. He stressed that any infraction he may have committed was unintentional, begged for understanding, and promised to correct his shortcomings.
In a Report 4 dated October 15, 2019, the OCA found that Lazaro had violated the rule on tardiness and stated that, as Branch Clerk of Court, he should have known that there is no policy allowing a 15-minute grace period for lower court personnel. Hence, it recommended that Lazaro be found guilty of habitual tardiness and be reprimanded, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations by the OCA.
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.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 26-07 5 dated April 24, 2007 prescribes the schedule of working hours in all courts in the National Capital Judicial Region. All court officials and employees are required to render not less than eight (8) hours of work per day for five (5) days a week, or from Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., without prejudice to approved flexi-time of certain personnel. Since the records show that Lazaro did not apply for flexi-time, the regular working schedule applies to him.
The records show that Lazaro incurred tardiness more than ten (10) times for the months of January to April in the first semester and July to November in the second semester.
Due to his habitual tardiness, Lazaro 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 required to strictly observe official time in order to inspire public respect for the justice system. Absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. 6 CAIHTE
Habitual tardiness is classified as either a grave or light offense under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS). If the habitual tardiness caused prejudice to the operations of the office, it is considered as a grave offense. 7 However, if it is plain habitual tardiness, it is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense. 8
In the case at bar, since there is no showing that Lazaro's tardiness had caused prejudice to the operations of his office, the penalty of reprimand is justified because this is Lazaro's first infraction relating to habitual tardiness.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Clerk of Court III JONATHAN F. LAZARO, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 98, Mandaluyong City, is GUILTY of habitual tardiness covering a period of nine (9) months in 2018 (January, February, March, April, July, August, September, October, and November), and he should be REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court. aScITE
The instant administrative matter is RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Clerk of Court III Jonathan F. Lazaro.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 9.
3.Id. at 10-16, including Annex.
4.Id. at 17-19.
5. SCHEDULE OF WORKING HOURS.
6.Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Elmida E. Vargas, 479 Phil. 832, 834 (2004).
7. 2017 RACCS, 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[.]
8.Id., 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
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 [.]