A.M. No. 04-5-128-MeTC; September 30, 2004
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. GLENN A. JAVEÑAR, Court Stenographer II, MeTC-OCC, Quezon City

FACTS

This administrative case concerns the habitual tardiness of respondent Glenn A. Javeñar, a Court Stenographer II. A certification from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) detailed that Javeñar incurred tardiness ten times or more in multiple months across 2002 and 2003, specifically in September, October, and November 2002; January, February, July, September, and November 2003. This pattern met the definition of habitual tardiness under civil service rules.
In his defense, Javeñar submitted a letter-explanation attributing his tardiness to parental obligations. He claimed his two-year-old son was frequently sick and hospitalized during the cited periods, requiring his personal care for feeding and administering medicine. He stated that his wife eventually resigned from work in March 2003 to attend to their son, and he promised improved attendance thereafter.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent’s habitual tardiness is justified by his cited domestic and parental obligations, and what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

The Court found Javeñar guilty of habitual tardiness and imposed a suspension. The legal logic is anchored on the stringent standards of conduct required from judiciary personnel. The Court held that while moral and domestic obligations may be considered in mitigation, they do not constitute a valid excuse for habitual tardiness. Public office is a public trust, and court officials and employees must be role models in observing official time as a recompense to the government and the people.
The Court rejected Javeñar’s explanation as insufficient. It noted that his tardiness persisted in July, September, and November 2003, months after his wife had resigned in March, thereby undermining his claim that the obligation was the sole cause. Applying Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, and the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, the Court classified the offense. Habitual tardiness is a light offense, with a first offense warranting reprimand and a second offense warranting suspension of 1-30 days. The record established two distinct counts: one for the consecutive months in 2002 and another for the months in 2003. Therefore, a penalty stiffer than the OCA’s recommended reprimand was warranted. Considering his six years of service and lack of prior administrative record, the Court deemed a twenty-day suspension appropriate. He was sternly warned that repetition would result in a more severe penalty.