THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-4026. January 27, 2020.][Formerly A.M. No. 19-04-84-RTC]
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF RUBY C. TABIO, STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN, BRANCH 49
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 27, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-4026 [Formerly A.M. No. 19-04-84-RTC] (Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ruby C. Tabio, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Branch 49) — The Court NOTES the Report dated September 13, 2019 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the habitual tardiness of Ms. Ruby C. Tabio, Court Stenographer III, Branch 49, RTC, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan.
Before the Court is an administrative matter involving the habitual tardiness of Ruby C. Tabio (respondent), Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Branch 49 (RTC).
The March 26, 2016 Report 1 of the Employees' Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), revealed that respondent was tardy seventeen (17) times in July 2018, and thirteen (13) times in October 2018. HTcADC
In its 1st Indorsement 2 dated April 10, 2019, the OCA directed respondent to comment on the Report.
In her July 1, 2019 Letter, 3 respondent explained the reasons for her absences. She stated that on September 14, 2017, she was diagnosed of hypertension and was recommended to take medications. From May 27 to 31, 2018, she was confined and underwent surgical operations of exploratory laparotomy and appendectomy at the Adventist Hospital Palawan. She then filed a one (1) month sick leave. She alleged that after she resumed work in July 2018 and up to the time of the filing of her Comment, she still feels pain on her surgical wound. Nonetheless, she tried her best to report to work as early as she could. Respondent asked for the Court's leniency and consideration and requested for another chance to work in the Judiciary. She asserted that she has been serving the Judiciary for twenty-nine (29) years and promised that she will, henceforth, report to work on time.
In its September 13, 2019 Report, 4 the OCA recommended that respondent be reprimanded for her habitual tardiness, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
The Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998 provides that "[a]n 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."
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
Based on the foregoing provisions, there is no question that respondent has been habitually tardy. The Court has read the explanation of respondent but finds her reasons insufficient to absolve her from administrative liability. CAIHTE
Tardiness seriously compromises work efficiency and hampers public service. By being habitually tardy, respondent fell short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. We have ruled that 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 cannon that public office is a public trust. 5 Corollary to this, the Court has indeed consistently held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. 6
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., 7 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. 8
Considering that this is the first time that respondent violated the rule on habitual tardiness and has been in the service for 29 years, the Court finds the penalty of reprimand appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Ruby C. Tabio is found GUILTY of Habitual Tardiness and is hereby REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3.
2.Id. at 6.
3.Id. at 7-8.
4.Id. at 34-35.
5.Re: Habitual Tardiness Incurred by Mr. Gideon M. Alibang for the 1st Semester of 2003, 476 Phil. 1, 5 (2004).
6.Re: Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Pua, Jr., 669 Phil. 138, 141 (2011).
7. 456 Phil. 183 (2003).
8.Id. at 190.