FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3947. June 10, 2019.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.INTERPRETER III AGNES P. PABLICO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR) [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 18-09-203-RTC (RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF INTERPRETER III AGNES P. PABLICO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3947 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Interpreter III Agnes P. Pablico, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur) [formerly A.M. No. 18-09-203-RTC (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Interpreter III Agnes P. Pablico, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur)]
Before the Court is an administrative matter involving the habitual tardiness of Agnes P. Pablico (respondent), Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Branch 21 (RTC).
A Report 1 from the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), shows that respondent was tardy sixteen (16) times in January 2018 and twenty (20) times in March 2018. HTcADC
In compliance with the OCA's directive, respondent submitted a Letter-Explanation 2 stating that her tardiness was due to unavoidable and pressing circumstances. She explained that starting December 2017 to March 2018, she had been very sick and experienced asthma attacks so she was frequently in the hospital; that her physician prevented her from going to work but, being a public servant, she still chose to report to work; that her medication was time-consuming as she needed to strictly follow the time for taking them; and that in March 2018, her mother suffered a heart attack that resulted in her paralysis, so she had to take care of the latter and look after her needs. She asserted that when she reported to the office, she devoted her time to performing her duties and worked even during lunch time. She added that she had no work backlog and diligently served the public the best way she could. She claimed that she had been in the Judiciary for thirty-six (36) years and was one of the court's "early bird" personnel. She regretted and apologized for her tardiness and promised that she would do her best to avoid being tardy again. 3
In its January 7, 2019 Report, 4 the OCA recommended that the report against respondent be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and that she be reprimanded for habitual tardiness and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with severely by the Court.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
The Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998 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."
We have consistently ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. 5 The Court cannot countenance such offense for it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. 6 CAIHTE
The Court finds respondent's explanation insufficient to absolve her from administrative liability. By being habitually tardy, respondent fell short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. 7 In the case of Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed during the Second Semester of 2002 by the Following Employees of this Court: Fe Malou B. Castelo, et al., 8 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. 9 (citations omitted)
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 incurred habitual tardiness, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Agnes P. Pablico, Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Branch 21, administratively liable for habitual tardiness. She is hereby REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. aScITE
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3; Report on Tardiness.
2.Id. at 6-7.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 11-12.
5.Re: Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Pua, Jr., 669 Phil. 138, 141 (2011).
6.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, et al., 502 Phil. 413, 420 (2005).
7.Re: Habitual Tardiness Incurred by Mr. Gideon M. Alibang for the 1st Semester of 2003, 476 Phil. 1, 5 (2004).
8. 456 Phil. 183 (2003).
9.Id. at 190.