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 school requirements (Castelo), being a single parent (Belando), pregnancy complications (Pacheco), heavy traffic (Borja), family illnesses and caregiving duties (Buenaventura, Dycueco), 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 and Chief Administrative Officer, Atty. Eden Candelaria, found the explanations insufficient. She noted that Castelo was already warned of dismissal for any future offense after a prior third-offense suspension. She also clarified that mere indications on the Record of Absences and Tardiness do not constitute approved leave; formal applications are required. Atty. Candelaria 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
Yes, all nine employees are administratively liable. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, and court personnel must exemplify integrity, discipline, and strict compliance with official duties, including punctuality. Habitual tardiness constitutes misconduct and gross inefficiency, impairing public service. The justifications offered, while humanly understandable, are not valid excuses to exempt them from administrative liability. Personal circumstances, though compelling, do not absolve an employee from the duty to observe official time.
The penalties were imposed following CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, but tempered with compassion and a sense of equity. For Fe Malou B. Castelo, this was her fourth offense, warranting dismissal under the rules. However, considering her pursuit of evening studies, the Court imposed a four-month suspension without pay instead. For Susan Belando (third offense), a 30-day suspension was deemed appropriate. Eleonor Pacheco received a five-day suspension for a second offense. Perpetua Guerrero and Lolita Buenaventura (second offense) and Ma. Cecilia Dycueco, Ma. Lourdes Buelva-Dela Cruz, Cyrus Borja, and Ma. Cielito Chua (first offense) were reprimanded. All were sternly warned that a repetition would merit a more severe penalty.