AM 00 6 09 SC; (August, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC; August 14, 2003
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.
FACTS
The Leave Division of the Supreme Court referred a list of nine employees who incurred habitual tardiness, defined as being late ten times or more per month for at least two months during the second semester of 2002. The employees were required to explain. Their justifications included attending evening classes and completing academic requirements (Castelo), single parenthood (Belando), pregnancy-related health issues (Pacheco), heavy traffic (Borja), family care obligations (Dyceuco, Buenaventura), wedding preparations (Buelva-Dela Cruz), and insomnia (Chua). Atty. Guerrero argued that a prior sanction for June 2002 constituted double jeopardy for the same month. The Deputy Clerk of Court found the explanations insufficient and recommended penalties ranging from reprimand to dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the cited employees are administratively liable for habitual tardiness and what corresponding penalties should be imposed.
RULING
The Court found all nine employees administratively liable. Habitual tardiness constitutes a grave offense under civil service rules, as it undermines public service efficiency and violates the constitutional mandate for public officers and employees to serve with responsibility and integrity. The employees’ proffered explanations, while often rooted in personal and family difficulties, were deemed insufficient to excuse the infractions. Public service demands punctuality, and personal circumstances, however challenging, do not generally absolve one from this fundamental duty. The Court rejected Atty. Guerrero’s double jeopardy claim, noting that the administrative proceeding was a continuation of the same disciplinary process, not a second punishment for the same act.
In imposing penalties, the Court applied CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, which prescribes a graduated scale: reprimand for the first offense, suspension for 1-30 days for the second, and dismissal for the third. However, the Court tempered strict application with judicial compassion and equity. For Fe Malou B. Castelo, whose fourth offense technically warranted dismissal, the Court imposed a four-month suspension without pay, considering her pursuit of evening studies. For Susan Belando, facing dismissal for a third offense, a 30-day suspension was deemed appropriate. The other employees received penalties ranging from reprimand (first offense for Dyceuco, Buelva-Dela Cruz, Borja, and Chua; second offense for Guerrero and Buenaventura) to a five-day suspension (second offense for Pacheco). All were sternly warned that repetition would merit a severer penalty.