THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-4034. January 27, 2020.]
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MS. NOELA A. LAGAJINO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 76, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. MS. NOELA A. LAGAJINO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 76, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 27, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-4034 [Formerly A.M. No.:19-04-82-RTC (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Noela A. Lagajino, Court Stenographer III, Branch 76, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal)](Office of the Court Administrator v. Ms. Noela A. Lagajino, Court Stenographer III, Branch 76, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal). — After a perusal of the records of the case, We resolve to adopt the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator finding Ms. Noela A. Lagajino guilty of Habitual Tardiness. aScITE
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Ms. Noela A. Lagajino, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76, GUILTY of Habitual Tardiness and is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
ATTACHMENT
Republic of the Philippines
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER FOR AGENDA
SUBJECT MATTER: A.M. No. 19-04-82-RTC(Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Noela A. Lagajino, Court Stenographer III, Branch 76, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal).
REASON FOR AGENDA: The Report dated 28 March 2019 of Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, showed that Noela A. Lagajino, Court Stenographer III, Branch 76, Regional Trial Court RTC), San Mateo, Rizal, incurred tardiness in January 2019 (29 times) and February 2019 (27 times).
In her Comment dated 24 May 2019, Ms. Lagajino apologized for her infraction. She explained that her tardiness for the said months was incurred because, as a working student, she had considerable difficulty in keeping a balance between her work and law studies. She added that her predicament was worsened by the fact that her place of work (Branch 76, RTC, San Mateo, Rizal) is a great distance from her school (Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila). Nevertheless, she promised to do her best not to commit the same mistakes again in the future.
EVALUATION: Under the Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, "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 a year."
Clearly, based on said Civil Service Rules Ms. Lagajino incurred habitual tardiness. The explanation of Ms. Lagajino does not merit consideration to justify her habitual tardiness. As repeatedly pronounced by the Court, moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health and domestic financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. 1
Parenthetically, the Court further pronounced that habitual tardiness seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service. By being habitually tardy, the employee has fallen short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. 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. 2 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. 3
Section 50 (F) (4), Rule 10 (classification of offenses), of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) penalized habitual tardiness with reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second; and dismissal from the service for the third. Per Ms. Lagajino's admission, this is her first offense for habitual tardiness. Hence, the penalty of reprimand is proper.
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
1. the Report dated 28 March 2019 of Ryan U. Lopez, Officer-in-Charge, Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Noela A. Lagajino, Court Stenographer III, Branch 76, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal, for habitual tardiness; and
2. Ms. Lagajino be found GUILTY of habitual tardiness and REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely by the Court. HEITAD
August 27, 2019
(SGD.) JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZCourt Administrator
(SGD.) RAUL BAUTISTA VILLANUEVADeputy Court Administrator
Footnotes
1. AM. No. 00-06-09-SC, Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 484 Phil. 480, 485-486 [2004].
2. Administrative Circular No. 2-99 dated 15 January 1999.
3. OCA Circular No. 63-2001 dated 3 October 2001.