AM 05 8 213 METC; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 05-8-213-MeTC September 14, 2005
Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Divina A. Kiamko, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12
FACTS
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported that Ms. Divina A. Kiamko, a Court Stenographer II, incurred habitual tardiness. Certifications from the Leave Division detailed her tardiness on 14 occasions in March 2004, 14 in April, 18 in June, and 14 in July. A subsequent certification showed she was late 13 times in October 2004 and 10 times in November 2004, confirming a pattern of infractions.
In her defense, Ms. Kiamko explained that her original schedule was 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but she had applied for a flexi-time schedule of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in 2000. After attending a training course in 2002 with official hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., she believed in good faith that her schedule reverted to her original time upon her return. She emphasized her twenty years of unblemished service and that this was her first administrative charge.
ISSUE
Whether Ms. Divina A. Kiamko is administratively liable for habitual tardiness.
RULING
Yes, Ms. Kiamko is administratively liable. The Court applied Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which defines habitual tardiness as incurring tardiness at least ten times a month for two months in a semester or two consecutive months in a year. The recorded infractions clearly meet this legal definition.
The Court rejected her justification. The legal logic hinges on the absence of a formal request to cancel her approved flexi-time schedule. Without such cancellation, her official reporting time remained 7:30 a.m. Her subjective belief, even if in good faith, does not override this administrative requirement. The Court emphasized that habitual tardiness by court personnel undermines public service efficiency and violates the stringent standards of conduct demanded in the judiciary. It cannot be tolerated as it encumbers the administration of justice. Consequently, her explanation did not constitute a valid mitigating circumstance to warrant exemption from penalty under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation, imposing the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning for a first offense, as prescribed by the rules.