SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-16-3415. January 25, 2016.][Formerly A.M. No. 13-3-42-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. GARRY P. MANINGAS, UTILITY WORKER I, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA, respondent.
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF GARRY P. MANINGAS, UTILITY WORKER I, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated25 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-16-3415 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Garry P. Maningas, Utility Worker I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, Pampanga) [Formerly A.M. No. 13-3-42-RTC] — (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Garry P. Maningas, Utility Worker I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, Pampanga)
In its Report of Habitual Tardiness, 1 dated March 1, 2013, the Employees' Leave Division (ELD), Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), stated that Garry P. Maningas (Maningas), Utility Worker I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, Pampanga, incurred tardiness for the following months in 2012:
| September 2012 | - | 10 times |
| October 2012 | - | 15 times |
In its Indorsement, 2 dated March 11, 2013, the OCA directed Maningas to submit his comment on the report.
In his Comment, 3 dated April 16, 2013, Maningas admitted being late on the said dates and apologized for exceeding the limit prescribed by the rules on punctuality. He explained that he was late because he had to attend to his paralyzed/bedridden mother. He could not delegate such duty to his unemployed sibling, who was suffering from mental and psychological problems due to drug abuse. He further stated that every day, he had to commute from his house in Bulacan to his place of work in Pampanga.
Maningas averred that he had never been charged administratively, civilly or, criminally, in his more than fourteen (14) years of service in the judiciary. He, nevertheless, promised to do his best not to commit the same infractions again in the future.
The OCA Recommendation
In its Report, 4 dated October 15, 2015, the OCA recommended that Maningas be found guilty of habitual tardiness and be reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
The OCA opined that Maningas violated Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 because of his tardiness. The OCA noted that he had admitted having violated the foregoing provision for coming late to work as confirmed by the report of the ELD, OAS, OCA. The explanation of Maningas that he had to attend to his ailing mother could not justify his habitual tardiness.
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998, categorically provides that "[a]ny 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."
In this case, Maningas incurred tardiness more than ten (10) times for two (2) months, specifically, in the months of September and October. Based on the foregoing, he certainly committed habitual tardiness. DETACa
The explanation proffered by Maningas regarding his ailing mother, sore feet and headaches, cannot completely exculpate him. In the case of Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Uri, 5 the Court held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns were not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.
To reiterate, all government officials and employees are accountable at all times to the people and must exercise utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. They must give every minute of their prescribed official time in the service to the public and must work for every centavo paid to them by the government. This duty calls for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time for public service, if only to recompense the government and, ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. 6
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 provides for the following penalties for habitual tardiness:
| First Offense | - | Reprimand |
| Second Offense | - | Suspension for 1 to 30 days |
| Third Offense | - | Dismissal |
This case is the first administrative charge against Maningas. Accordingly, the Court finds that the penalty of reprimand is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Garry P. Maningas, Utility Worker I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, Pampanga, is found GUILTY of habitual tardiness for failing to observe the proper office hours. He is hereby REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. 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 9-11.
5. 670 Phil. 1, 5 (2011).
6. Re: Habitual Tardiness of Cesare Sales, A.M. No. P-13-3171, January 28, 2014, 714 SCRA 601, 609.