A.M. No. 2017-11-SC. July 27, 2020.
RE: EMPLOYEES INCURRING HABITUAL TARDINESS AND UNDERTIME IN THE FIRST SEMESTER OF 2017.

FACTS

The case originated from a Memorandum dated January 10, 2018, by Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), recommending administrative penalties against Supreme Court employees for habitual tardiness and undertime violations during the first semester of 2017. The Leave Division reported that three employees incurred habitual tardiness in violation of CSC Memorandum Circular Nos. 4 (1991) and 17 (2010), and one employee incurred several undertimes in violation of CSC MC No. 16 (2010). The employees and their violations were: Ms. Jhunine Ann T. Gamolo (Utility Worker II) with 10-12 tardies per month; Ms. Genevieve Victoria Maria B. Zuñiga (Court Stenographer IV) with 10-14 tardies; Ms. Nicole Angela Regina C. Benbinuto (former Judicial Staff Assistant II) with 10-12 tardies; and Ms. Ivy B. Silva (Accountant III) with 3-10 undertimes per month. Except for Ms. Benbinuto, who had resigned effective July 1, 2017, the others were directed to explain. Ms. Gamolo, a single mother, cited childcare difficulties and health issues (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). Ms. Zuñiga, also a single mother, cited anxiety and depression awaiting Bar exam results and dealing with marital separation. Ms. Silva cited health issues, childcare needs, and her son’s occupational therapy. The OAS found their justifications unacceptable and recommended penalties: suspension for five days without pay for Ms. Gamolo (second offense); reprimand for Ms. Zuñiga (first offense); attachment of the offense record to the 201 File for Ms. Benbinuto; and suspension for five days without pay for Ms. Silva for simple misconduct, considering mitigating circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the concerned Supreme Court employees should be held administratively liable for incurring habitual tardiness and undertime, and what penalties are appropriate.

RULING

Yes, the employees are administratively liable. The Court adopted the OAS evaluation, emphasizing that public office is a public trust, requiring strict observance of official time. Habitual tardiness and absenteeism are impermissible as they undermine public respect for the judiciary. The Court applied the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), classifying habitual tardiness as a light offense, as the 2017 RACCS took effect after the offenses. The personal circumstances cited, while noted, are not valid excuses to evade responsibility, as flexible time arrangements are available through proper channels. The penalties imposed are: (1) Ms. Jhunine Ann T. Gamolo is SUSPENDED for five days without pay for a second offense of habitual tardiness; (2) Ms. Genevieve Victoria Maria B. Zuñiga is REPRIMANDED for a first offense of habitual tardiness; (3) For Ms. Nicole Angela Regina C. Benbinuto, who resigned, the record of her first offense is ATTACHED to her 201 File; and (4) Ms. Ivy B. Silva is SUSPENDED for five days without pay for simple misconduct (violating the Policy on Undertime), with mitigating circumstances considered. All are warned that repetition will be dealt with more severely.