AM P 04 1863; (August, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-04-1863. August 12, 2004. RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MR. THEODORE G. JAYMALIN, CLERK III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT – OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MANILA.
FACTS:
A certification from the Leave Division, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), established that respondent Theodore G. Jaymalin, a Clerk III at the Metropolitan Trial Court in Manila, incurred habitual tardiness over multiple months in 2002 and 2003. The records showed he was late 18 times in July 2002, 21 times in August, 19 times in September, 18 times in October, 11 times in December, and 16 and 13 times in January and February 2003, respectively.
In his defense, Jaymalin candidly expressed regret and attributed his tardiness to severe financial difficulties. He explained that as the family breadwinner, overwhelming debts caused him sleepless nights, loss of appetite, and low vitality, leading him to take anti-depressants and consult a psychiatrist. However, the Executive Judge of MTC Manila found this explanation unmeritorious, recommending a reprimand. The OCA concurred, noting that such personal reasons do not justify habitual tardiness.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Theodore G. Jaymalin is administratively liable for habitual tardiness.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA. Under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, an employee is habitually tardy if tardiness is incurred ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months. Jaymalin’s recorded absences far exceeded this threshold, making him guilty of the charge.
The legal logic is grounded in the stringent standards of conduct required from judiciary personnel. The Court emphasized that habitual tardiness seriously undermines public service efficiency and violates the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. While the Court acknowledged the respondent’s personal and financial struggles, it reiterated established jurisprudence that such reasons—including moral obligations, household chores, traffic, health, and financial concerns—are not sufficient excuses for habitual tardiness. These circumstances, however compelling, do not exempt an employee from the disciplinary rules. The primary duty is to the public service, and observance of official hours is a fundamental part of that duty. The penalty for a first offense of habitual tardiness, as per the relevant civil service rules, is reprimand. Accordingly, the Court imposed this penalty with a stern warning that a repetition would be met with a more severe sanction.