A.M. No. P-05-2080. October 5, 2005. Re: Habitual Tardiness of Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Piñas City.
FACTS

This administrative matter concerns the habitual tardiness of respondent Natividad M. Calingao, a Clerk III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Piñas City. A report from the Supreme Court Leave Division indicated that Calingao incurred tardiness sixteen (16) times in January 2005 and ten (10) times in February 2005. The Court Administrator required her to submit a comment on the report.
In her explanation, Calingao admitted the infractions and apologized. She attributed her tardiness to her duties as a working mother with five children, including twins whom she had to bring to school before work. She explained she could not bring them earlier than 6:30 a.m. as no teacher would be present, and delegating the task to her other children was not feasible due to their schedules. To demonstrate good faith, she claimed she often worked beyond dismissal time. She requested consideration to avail of a flexible working schedule from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Natividad M. Calingao is administratively liable for habitual tardiness.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found her guilty of habitual tardiness as defined under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1998, which deems an employee habitually tardy if tardiness is incurred at least ten times a month for two consecutive months within a year. Her admissions for January and February 2005 squarely fall under this definition.
The Court rejected her proffered justification. It reiterated settled jurisprudence that personal reasons, such as moral obligations, household chores, traffic, health, and domestic or financial concerns, do not excuse habitual tardiness. The Court emphasized that court personnel must be exemplars in observing public office as a public trust, which includes strict adherence to official hours to ensure efficient public service and maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Punctuality is a stringent requirement, and absenteeism or tardiness cannot be countenanced as they impair judicial efficiency.
Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999), the penalty for a first offense of habitual tardiness is reprimand. Considering this was her first offense, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning that a repetition would warrant a more severe sanction. The Court Administrator’s recommendation was adopted.