AM P 08 2459; (July, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-08-2459; July 23, 2008
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Serafin S. Basco, Court Interpreter II, MTCC, Branch 2, Antipolo City, Respondent.
FACTS
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charged respondent Serafin S. Basco, a Court Interpreter II, with habitual tardiness. A certification from the OCA’s Office of Administrative Services showed that from January to June 2007, Basco was tardy 12, 14, 15, 10, 14, and 13 times per month, respectively. This pattern clearly met the frequency defined as habitual under civil service rules.
In his defense, Basco expressed regret but attributed his tardiness to heavy traffic encountered during his daily commute from Pasig City to Antipolo City. He also claimed he had wanted to avail of a flexible working hours scheme but was discouraged by his Clerk of Court, who indicated the presiding judge might disapprove. Basco asserted he was not remiss in his duties and personally signed in.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Serafin S. Basco is administratively liable for habitual tardiness.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Basco guilty of habitual tardiness. The legal logic is anchored on the stringent standards of conduct required of all judiciary personnel. Under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1998, an employee is habitually tardy if tardy at least ten times a month for two consecutive months. Basco’s record for six consecutive months far exceeded this threshold.
The Court rejected his justifications. Traffic problems, along with other personal or domestic concerns, are not considered sufficient or tenable excuses for habitual tardiness. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, and court employees must be role models in observing official time. Punctuality is essential to maintain public respect for the justice system and to ensure the efficient use of government resources. As this was Basco’s first offense, the applicable penalty under the Civil Service Rules was a reprimand. Accordingly, the Court reprimanded Basco with a stern warning that a repetition would warrant a more severe penalty.