AM P 10 2852; (July, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-10-2852. July 27, 2011.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. LEDA O. URI, Court Stenographer I, Municipal Trial Court, Alaminos, Laguna, Respondent.
FACTS
The Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported that respondent Leda O. Uri, Court Stenographer I of the Municipal Trial Court in Alaminos, Laguna, incurred habitual tardiness, being late 13 times in July 2009 and 10 times in August 2009. Upon being required to comment, Uri did not deny the tardiness. She explained that minor delays of one to two minutes were due to uncontrollable factors like traffic, and that her duties as a mother to a two-year-old daughter and as a wife, which required her to personally attend to her family each morning, contributed to her late arrivals. She also submitted a supplemental letter citing financial reasons for moving to a farther residence, making her commute longer, and detailing her role as the sole financial support for her extended family, which led her to open a small store. She admitted the infraction, expressed remorse, and requested leniency. In a subsequent Manifestation, she noted that she had already served a one-month suspension without pay for tardiness incurred in September and October 2009 (a separate, later case) and pleaded for reconsideration and another chance.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Leda O. Uri should be held administratively liable for habitual tardiness incurred in July and August 2009, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of habitual tardiness. The Court ruled that her explanations—including moral obligations, household chores, traffic, financial concerns, and family duties—do not justify habitual tardiness, as established in prior jurisprudence (Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties). Considering her 14 years of service, her acknowledgment of the infraction, remorse, and the fact that she had already served a one-month suspension for a subsequent tardiness offense, the Court imposed the penalty of SEVERE REPRIMAND. She was warned that any future finding of habitual tardiness within two years from notice would result in a penalty graver than the previously imposed one-month suspension.