G.R. No. P-04-1860. August 31, 2004.
Re: Habitual Tardiness of GUENDOLYN C. SISON, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City.

FACTS

This administrative case concerns Guendolyn C. Sison, Clerk III of the RTC, Branch 23 in Cebu City, who was charged with habitual tardiness. A certification from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) detailed that Sison incurred tardiness exceeding ten times per month on multiple occasions: in September, October, November, and December of 2002; and again in March and April of 2003. This pattern clearly met the definition of habitual tardiness under pertinent civil service rules.
In her defense, Sison submitted a letter-explanation citing the considerable distance of her residence from the office and resulting traffic difficulties. She argued that she compensated for lost time by forgoing breaks and working beyond official hours to complete her tasks. The OCA found this explanation insufficient and recommended a penalty of reprimand with a warning.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Guendolyn C. Sison is administratively liable for habitual tardiness and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty given the circumstances.

RULING

The Court found Sison guilty of habitual tardiness. The legal logic is anchored on the stringent standards of conduct required from judiciary personnel. The Court consistently rules that common excuses such as traffic, distance, or domestic concerns do not justify habitual tardiness. Court officials and employees are bound to be exemplars of the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, which necessitates strict adherence to official working hours. Punctuality is a non-negotiable duty, and making one’s own schedule undermines public service efficiency.
Applying Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, an employee is habitually tardy if tardy at least ten times a month for two months in a semester or two consecutive months. The records established that Sison committed this offense across two distinct periods: during the second semester of 2002 and the first semester of 2003. This constituted two separate counts of the offense.
Under Section 52(C)(4), Rule VI of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, the prescribed penalty for the first offense is reprimand, and for the second offense, suspension of one to thirty days. Since Sison committed two counts, the OCA’s recommended penalty of a mere reprimand was inadequate. Mitigating her clean record prior to this charge and her length of service since 1997, the Court imposed a twenty-day suspension. She was sternly warned that a repetition would warrant a more severe penalty. The Court also directed the OCA to file charges promptly upon an employee incurring habitual tardiness.