AM 2003 11 SC; (June, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. 2003-11-SC; June 14, 2004
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS INCURRED BY MR. GIDEON M. ALIBANG FOR THE 1ST SEMESTER OF 2003
FACTS
This administrative case concerns Gideon M. Alibang, Building and Ground Maintenance Head B of the Hall of Justice in Davao City. A Report of Tardiness from the Court’s Leave Division revealed that Alibang incurred tardiness 13 times in January 2003 and 11 times in February 2003. He was directed to explain these infractions.
In his comment, Alibang admitted the habitual tardiness. He cited mitigating circumstances: his wife gave birth in December 2002, their house helper subsequently left, forcing him to manage household chores before work, and heavy traffic due to a local underpass construction prolonged his commute. He apologized for his belated explanation and sought leniency.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Gideon M. Alibang should be held administratively liable for habitual tardiness.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Alibang administratively liable. Applying Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 1991, an employee is habitually tardy if tardy at least ten times a month for two consecutive months in a semester. Alibang’s 13 and 11 tardies in January and February 2003, respectively, clearly constitute habitual tardiness under this rule.
The Court rejected Alibang’s justifications. While moral obligations, household chores, and traffic problems may be considered in mitigation, they do not excuse the infraction. The Court emphasized the exacting standards required of all judiciary personnel. As public office is a public trust, court officials and employees must be role models in observing official hours to ensure efficient public service and maintain the judiciary’s integrity. Punctuality is a strict requirement, and absenteeism or tardiness severely tarnishes the court’s image as a temple of justice.
Under Section 52(C)(4) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, the penalty for a first offense of habitual tardiness is reprimand. Accordingly, the Court adopted the recommendation and reprimanded Alibang, with a stern warning that a repetition would be met with a more severe penalty.