G.R. No. A.M. No. 08-1-11-MeTC August 11, 2008
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Myrene C. Balisi, Court Stenographer II, MeTC, Branch 29, Manila

FACTS

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed an administrative complaint against respondent Myrene C. Balisi, a Court Stenographer II, for habitual tardiness. A report from the Leave Division documented that Balisi was tardy eleven times in February 2007 and fourteen times in April 2007. When required to comment, Balisi admitted to the infractions. She offered as an explanation her need to attend to her five-year-old daughter each morning after the child’s nanny departed, stating she could only report on time when her mother was available to provide childcare.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent is administratively liable for habitual tardiness despite her proffered personal justification.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Balisi guilty of habitual tardiness as defined under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, which considers an employee habitually tardy if tardiness is incurred at least ten times a month for two months within a semester. The Court rejected her explanation, reiterating its consistent jurisprudence that domestic responsibilities and household concerns, while understandable, do not constitute valid excuses to justify habitual tardiness among court personnel. The Court emphasized that all judiciary employees must adhere to the highest standards of conduct and are required to be role models in observing public office as a public trust. Punctuality is essential to maintain public respect for the justice system and to ensure the efficient delivery of judicial services. Applying Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, which prescribes a reprimand for the first offense of habitual tardiness, the Court imposed this penalty on Balisi. She was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be met with a more severe sanction.