Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-04-1880. March 18, 2005
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, MR. FRANCISCO P. BAGUIO, INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 13, CEBU CITY, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
In a Letter dated March 12, 2003, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño informed Presiding Judge Meinrado P. Paredes, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, that Francisco P. Baguio, Interpreter III of the same court, incurred tardiness 13 times for July, 11 times for September, 13 times for October, and 10 times for December 2002. Baguio was directed to explain why he should not be reprimanded pursuant to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998.1 In his Letter dated April 11, 2003, Baguio replied that he resided 23 kilometers away from his workplace in Cebu City and at times, his tardiness was due to traffic.
In a Certification dated March 15, 2004, the Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services also reported that Baguio was tardy 17 times in January and 15 times in February 2003.
In a Memorandum dated June 28, 2004, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommended that Baguio be reprimanded for habitual tardiness and warned that repetition of the same or similar offense would warrant severe penalty.
Mr. Baguios habitual tardiness seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. He falls short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice.2 We have time and again said, officials and employees of the judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that a public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of the prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people, who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary.3 Strict observance of official time is therefore mandatory lest the dignity of the justice system be compromised.
Baguios explanation of his habitual tardiness is unsatisfactory and we cannot countenance his cavalier attitude toward public service. We have previously ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.4
Considering this is Baguios first offense, the penalty of reprimand5 is warranted.
WHEREFORE, FRANCISCO P. BAGUIO, Interpreter III, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, is hereby REPRIMANDED for his habitual tardiness and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 . . .
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.
2 Office of the Court Administrator v. Barnedo, A.M. No. P-04-1888 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-6-334-RTC), 7 October 2004, p. 2.
3 Administrative Circular No. 2-99, Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness, dated 15 January 1999.
4 Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2002, A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC, 14 August 2003, 409 SCRA 9, 15.
5 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.
Rule IV PENALTIES
Section 52.
C. . . .
4. Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)
1st Offense - Reprimand
2nd Offense - Suspension 1-30 days
3rd Offense - Dismissal
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio.
A.M. No. P-04-18804 min read
This is an administrative case, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Francisco P. Baguio, A.M. No. P-04-1880, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 18, 2005. Baguio, an Interpreter III at the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, was charged with habitual tardiness for incurring tardiness more than ten times in several months. He explained that his tardiness was due to traffic, but the Court ruled that his explanation was unsatisfactory and that he was guilty of habitual tardiness. The Court reprimanded Baguio for his first offense and warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense would warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. The Court emphasized that strict observance of official time is mandatory for officials and employees of the judiciary, as they are considered role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that a public office is a public trust.
Quick Answers
- What is Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio. about?
- This is an administrative case, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Francisco P. Baguio, A.M. No. P-04-1880, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 18, 2005. Baguio, an Interpreter III at the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, was charged with habitual tardiness for incurring tardiness more than ten times in several months. He explained that his tardiness was due to traffic, but the Court ruled that his explanation was unsatisfactory and that he was guilty of habitual tardiness. The Court reprimanded Baguio for his first offense and warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense would warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. The Court emphasized that strict observance of official time is mandatory for officials and employees of the judiciary, as they are considered role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that a public office is a public trust.
- Which court decided Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio.?
- Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio. was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio. decided?
- Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio. (A.M. No. P-04-1880) was decided on Mar 18, 2005.
- What is the citation for Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio.?
- Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio., A.M. No. P-04-1880, Mar 18, 2005 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- A.M. No. P-04-1880
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Standard Citation
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio., A.M. No. P-04-1880, Mar 18, 2005 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
APA Style
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2005). Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Francisco P. Baguio. (A.M. No. P-04-1880). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/office-of-the-court-administrator-vs-mr-francisco-p-baguio
Related Cases
- Office of the Court Administrator v. BaguioA.M. No. P-04-1880 [Formerly A.M. No. 04-6-353-RTC] (Resolution) • Mar 18, 2005
- Office of the Court Administrator v. PerezA.M. No. P-19-3949 (Notice) • Oct 14, 2019
- Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Wilhelm A. BarnedoA.M. No. P-04-1888 • Oct 7, 2004
- Office of the Court Administrator v. CabatoA.M. No. RTJ-14-2401 (Notice) • Feb 28, 2018
- Office of the Court Administrator v. CabatoA.M. No. RTJ-14-2401 • Jan 25, 2017
- Office of the Court Administrator v. SarcenoA.M. No. P-11-2930 • Feb 17, 2015
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case