THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-13-3166. January 20, 2014.]
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF FLORENCE F. SALANGO, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, BRANCH 3, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAGUIO CITY
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 20, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-13-3166 (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Florence F. Salango, Legal Researcher II, Branch 3, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City). — On June 6, 2012 the Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported that respondent Florence F. Salango, Legal Researcher II, Branch 3, Regional Trial Court of Baguio City incurred 13 tardiness in February and 10 in June 2011.
Required to comment on the report, Salango said that upon hearing from officemates that a Civil Service Circular already classified half-day as late, she became wary because her presiding judge seldom allowed her to go on leave, preferring that she just go on half-day work because he needed her to assist him. Though she was a legal researcher, she also acted as the judge's secretary, doing personal errands for him. The judge himself wrote his decisions and orders. Further, she explained that she had been "reserving" her tardiness because she found it difficult to get a jeepney or a taxicab where she lived.
Salango also explained that as early as January 2011, she had informed her presiding judge that she would be going on leave to get some rest on advice of her doctor. She incurred about six tardy marks because she was required to come to work despite her illness. She would go to certain government offices on errands for her judge. Only on February 16, 2012 did the Executive Judge allow her to take an emergency leave. SDTIaE
In its Report of August 8, 2013, the OCA found no valid excuse for Salango's not less than 10 tardiness marks in February and June 2011. The OCA rejected her claim that tardiness was forced upon her because she needed to work half-day, she had transportation problems, and her superior had refused to allow her to go on leave. The Court has always ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. 1
Civil Service Memorandum Circular 23, Series of 1998, provides that an employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, 10 times a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year. Salango is in violation of this rule.
Section 52 (c) (4), Rule VI of the Civil Service Circular 19, Series of 1999 on the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies Habitual Tardiness (1st Offense) as a light offense carrying a penalty of reprimand. Considering that this is Salango's first infraction, the penalty of reprimand is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS respondent Florence F. Salango, Legal Researcher II, Branch 3, Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, for habitual tardiness and WARNS her that a repetition of the same infraction will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED." aEcSIH
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao, Clerk III, Branch 225, RTC, Las Piñas City, 509 Phil. 83, 85-86 (2005).