SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-16-3433. March 7, 2016.][Formerly A.M. No. 15-09-283-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. JOSEPH A. MEJIA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 92, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF JOSEPH A. MEJIA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 92, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 March 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-16-3433 — (Office of the Court Administrator v. Joseph A. Mejia, Court Stenographer III, Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City)[Formerly A.M. No. 15-09-283-RTC] — (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Joseph A. Mejia, Court Stenographer III, Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City)
In its Report of Habitual Tardiness, dated July 16, 2015, 1 the Employees' Leave Division (ELD), Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), stated that Joseph A. Mejia (Mejia), Court Stenographer III, Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, incurred tardiness for the following months of the year 2014:
| September 2014 | 10 times |
| October 2014 | 10 times |
In its Indorsement, 2 dated September 15, 2015, the OCA directed Mejia to submit his comment on the report.
On November 6, 2015, Mejia filed his Comment 3 admitting that he indeed incurred tardiness during the stated periods. He explained that his tardiness was due to his sinusitis which usually struck in the morning. Mejia maintained that he was managing his allergies through exercise and proper diet. He also promised to do his best to overcome his habitual tardiness and asked leniency on the matter.
The OCA Recommendation
In its Report, 4 dated December 18, 2015, the OCA recommended that Mejia be found guilty of habitual tardiness and be reprimanded, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. The OCA opined that Mejia violated Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 because of his admitted tardiness. It concluded that his explanation that his absence was due to his health condition was unsatisfactory. Further, the OCA found that Mejia, due to his habitual tardiness, failed to live up to the standard of conduct set by the Supreme Court.
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, Mejia incurred tardiness more than 10 times for two (2) consecutive months in 2014, specifically on the months of September and October. Thus, Mejia indeed committed habitual tardiness.
The explanation proffered by Mejia regarding his sinusitis cannot exculpate him from liability. In 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. Mejia offered a flimsy excuse regarding his allergies in the morning, which could be easily remedied if he so desired. CAIHTE
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 |
Considering this is Mejia's first administrative offense, the Court finds that a penalty of reprimand must be imposed.
WHEREFORE, Joseph A. Mejia, Court Stenographer III, Branch 92, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, is found GUILTY of habitual tardiness and is REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 2.
2. Id. at 5.
3. Id. at 6.
4. Id. at 7-8.
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.