FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-22-050. March 23, 2022.][Formerly A.M. No. 20-10-35-MTC]
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MR. CONRADO R. DELA CUESTA, UTILITY WORKER I, BRANCH 1, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 23, 2022which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-22-050[Formerly A.M. No. 20-10-35-MTC](Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mr. Conrado R. Dela Cuesta, Utility Worker I, Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal). — The administrative case stemmed from an undated Report on Tardiness/Undertime Incurred 1 (Report) submitted by the Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The Report showed that Conrado R. Dela Cuesta (respondent), Utility Worker I, Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal incurred tardiness 17 times in January 2020 and 16 times in February 2020 based on his daily time records. 2
In a 1st Indorsement 3 dated October 28, 2020, the OCA required respondent to submit his comment on the charge of Habitual Tardiness.
In his Comment, 4 respondent admitted and apologized for his infractions. He attributed his tardiness to his health condition after he was diagnosed with diabetes. He begged the leniency and compassion of the Court and pleaded that the penalty to be imposed on him be tempered for humanitarian considerations on account of his almost 23 years of government service. He promised to refrain from repeating the same offense in the future. 5
In the Report and Recommendation 6 dated November 9, 2021, the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) recommended that: (1) the Report submitted by the Employees' Leave Division, OCA be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent; and (2) respondent be found administratively liable of Habitual Tardiness, and reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely by the Court. 7
The Court resolves to adopt and approve the findings and recommendations of the JIB with modification. CAIHTE
The rule is 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." 8 In the case, it is undisputed that respondent has been habitually tardy. Respondent, however, explained that his tardiness was due to his health condition.
The Court finds respondent's explanation insufficient to absolve him from administrative liability.
Jurisprudence dictates that illness or poor health, among others, are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. The Court cannot countenance such offense for it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. 9
As to the penalty, the JIB recommended that the respondent be reprimanded pursuant to Section 50 (F) (4), 10 Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. However, it bears stressing that the Court, in its Resolution dated October 2, 2018 in A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC expressly included personnel of the lower courts within the coverage of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Under Rule 140, the proper penalty for habitual tardiness is either: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine not more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. 11 Nonetheless, the Court finds the penalty of reprimand to be appropriate considering the following mitigating factors: (1) that this is respondent's first infraction in his 23 long years of service in the judiciary; 12 (2) his illness; (3) his pleas for compassion; and (4) his firm resolve to be more cautious in the performance of his duties and responsibilities. 13
WHEREFORE, the Court NOTES the: (1) undated Report on Tardiness/Undertime Incurred submitted by the Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator; (2) Letter dated December 16, 2020 submitted by respondent Conrado R. Dela Cuesta; and (3) Report and Recommendation dated November 9, 2021 of the Judicial Integrity Board finding respondent Conrado R. Dela Cuesta to be administratively liable for Habitual Tardiness and recommending that the undated Report be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent and that the latter be reprimanded with a stern warning.
The Court RESOLVES to RE-DOCKET this matter as a regular administrative matter and finds respondent Conrado R. Dela Cuesta, Utility Worker I, Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal, guilty of Habitual Tardiness. He is REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3; prepared and signed by Mary Rosalyn K. Jose, Assistant Officer-in-Charge, Employees' Leave Division.
2.Id. at 4.
3.Id. at 5; signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (now a Member of the Court), Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva (now Court Administrator), and OCA Legal Office Chief Wilhelmina D. Geronga.
4.Id. at 6-7.
5.Id. at 6 and 11.
6.Id. at 10-14; penned by Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.) with Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (Ret.), Sesinando E. Villon (Ret.), and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Ret.), concurring.
7.Id. at 12-13.
8. Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 (June 15, 1988).
9.Office of the Court Administrator v. Moral, Jr., A.M. No. P-19-3983, August 14, 2019, citing Re: Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Pua, Jr., 669 Phil. 138, 141 (2011) and 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).
10. Section 50 (F) (4), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
Section 50. Classification of Offenses. — x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
F. The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for the first offense; x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
4. Habitual Tardiness;
xxx xxx xxx
11. Section 25. Sanctions. —
xxx xxx xxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of not more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
12.Rollo, p. 6.
13.Re:Failure of Various Employees to Register in the Chronolog Machine, 646 Phil. 18-33 (2010).