FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3983. August 14, 2019.][Formerly A.M. No. 16-10-348-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.ALFREDO R. MORAL, JR., CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 221, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3983(Office of the Court Administrator v. Alfredo R. Moral, Jr., Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 221) [Formerly A.M. No. 16-10-348-RTC] (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mr. Alfredo R. Moral, Jr., Clerk III, Branch 221, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City)
Before the Court is an administrative matter involving the habitual tardiness of Alfredo R. Moral, Jr. (respondent), Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 221 (RTC).
The September 6, 2016 Report 1 of the Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), revealed that respondent was tardy eleven (11) times in July 2015, ten (10) times in August 2015, and twelve (12) times in September 2015.
In its 1st Indorsement 2 dated November 3, 2016, the OCA directed respondent to comment on the Report. For respondent's failure to file a comment, the OCA reiterated the directive in its 1st Tracer 3 dated June 13, 2017. Respondent, however, still failed to comply.
In its June 11, 2018 Resolution, the Court, upon the recommendation of the OCA, directed respondent to file his Comment on the Report and to show cause why no additional administrative sanction should be imposed upon him for his failure to comply with the directives of the OCA. 4
In his August 13, 2018 Letter, 5 respondent asked for the Court's indulgence and offered his heartfelt apologies for his failure to comply with the OCA directives. He explained that his tardiness was neither intentional nor desired, and that he compensated for those times he was late by subsequently working beyond the regular working hours. He narrated that he and his wife took care of his mother who had a lingering kidney illness, and had to be rushed to the hospital many times. His mother passed away on May 27, 2015. Respondent added that his wife, who took the heavier share of attending to his mother's care while he was at work, suffered from hypertension and the aftermath of her previous hysterectomy. The side-effects of her medications took a heavy toll on her so respondent had to do the house chores.
In its November 28, 2018 Resolution, 6 the Court referred respondent's letter to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
In its February 11, 2019 Memorandum, 7 the OCA recommended that respondent's explanation be considered sufficient compliance with the Show Cause Order and that respondent be reprimanded for his habitual tardiness, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely by the Court.
The Court's Ruling
The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well-taken.
The Court finds respondent's explanation insufficient to absolve him from administrative liability. Tardiness causes inefficiency and is prejudicial to public service. 8 By being habitually tardy, respondent fell short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone involved in the administration of justice. 9 In the case of Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for HabitualTardiness Committed during the Second Semester of 2002 by the following Employees of this Court: Fe Malou B. Castelo, 10 the Court elucidated:
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. 11 (citations omitted)
It must be emphasized that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. 12 The Court cannot countenance such offense for it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. 13
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998, provides that "[a]n 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."
Under Section 52 (C) (4), Rule IV of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows:
First Offense — Reprimand
Second Offense — Suspension for 1-30 days
Third Offense — Dismissal from the service
Considering that this is the first time that respondent violated the rule on habitual tardiness, the Court finds the penalty of Reprimand appropriate.
The Court deems as sufficient compliance with its Show Cause Order respondent's letter explaining his tardiness and failure to immediately comply with the directives of the OCA.
WHEREFORE, Alfredo R. Moral, Jr. is found GUILTY of Habitual Tardiness and is hereby REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
The Memorandum dated February 11, 2019 of the Office of the Court Administrator in compliance with the Resolution dated November 28, 2018 which referred respondent's letter (comment on the report) regarding his habitual tardiness incurred for the months of July, August and September 2015, and in further compliance with the Show Cause Resolution dated June 11, 2018 for non-compliance with the directives of their office to comment on the aforesaid report is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 2.
2.Id. at 6.
3.Id. at 7.
4.Id. at 11-13.
5.Id. at 15-16.
6.Id. at 20-21.
7.Id. at 22-25.
8.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 441 Phil. 240, 249 (2002).
9.Re: Habitual Tardiness Incurred by Mr. Gideon M. Alibang for the 1st Semester of 2003, 476 Phil. 1, 5 (2004).
10. 456 Phil. 183 (2003).
11.Id. at 190.
12.Re: Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Pua, Jr., 669 Phil. 138, 141 (2011).
13.Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed during the Second Semester of 2004 by the following employees of this Court: Rodolfo E. Cabral, 502 Phil. 413, 420 (2005).