AM P 11 3010; (November, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-11-3010
Date: November 23, 2011
Case Parties/Title: LEAVE DIVISION-OAS, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. LARAINE I. CALINGASAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, STA. ROSA, LAGUNA, Respondent.
FACTS
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through its Leave Division, reported that respondent Laraine I. Calingasan, a Court Stenographer II, incurred habitual tardiness during the second semester of 2009. Her tardiness was recorded as follows: 11 times in September 2009, 13 times in November 2009, and 14 times in December 2009, based on her time cards. The OCA required her to comment on the charge. In her defense, Calingasan explained that from August to November 2009, she had to clean her son’s post-surgery wound every morning and accompany him to medical check-ups. For December 2009, she attributed her tardiness to hypertension, stating she needed to take medication and wait for her blood pressure to normalize before going to work. The OCA recommended that she be reprimanded for this first offense of habitual tardiness.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Laraine I. Calingasan is administratively liable for habitual tardiness.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for habitual tardiness. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation. The Court found that Calingasan’s tardiness fell within the definition of habitual tardiness under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1998, which defines it as incurring tardiness ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months in a year. The Court emphasized that court personnel must adhere to stringent standards of conduct and be role models in observing official time, as punctuality is essential to public service and maintaining public respect for the judiciary. The excuses offered by Calingasan—her son’s medical condition and her own hypertension—were deemed insufficient to justify habitual tardiness, as moral obligations, household chores, health conditions, and similar concerns are not valid excuses. Applying Section 52(C)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, which prescribes a reprimand for the first offense of habitual tardiness, the Court reprimanded Calingasan and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.