GR 249126; (September, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 249126. September 29, 2021
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. MARILYN L. GAGABUAN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Marilyn L. Gagabuan, a Revenue Collection Clerk I of the Municipality of Gen. MacArthur, Eastern Samar, was the subject of two administrative complaints for habitual tardiness. The first case, CSCRO8 ADC No. 11-048, charged her under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) for incurring 85 instances of tardiness from July 2010 to March 2011. The second case, CSCRO8 ADC No. 11-120, charged her under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) for 72 instances of tardiness from January to June 2010. Gagabuan admitted to the charges but argued that her tardiness had been deducted from her accrued leave credits and cited mitigating circumstances.
The Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VIII (CSCRO VIII) found her liable in both cases. In the first case, it imposed a six-month suspension. In the second case, considering it a second offense, it ordered her dismissal from service. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Proper affirmed these decisions. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the penalties, reclassifying habitual tardiness as a light offense and imposing a reprimand for the first offense and a thirty-day suspension for the second, citing Gagabuan’s acknowledgment of infractions, remorse, and status as a solo parent with 25 years of service. The CSC filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in imposing the penalties of reprimand and suspension for thirty (30) days against Gagabuan by classifying habitual tardiness as a light offense instead of a grave offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s modification of the penalties. The Court resolved the apparent conflict in the classification of habitual tardiness under the URACCS and RRACCS. While Section 52(A)(17) of the URACCS and Section 46(B)(5) of the RRACCS classify “Tardiness in reporting for duty” as a grave offense, Section 52(C)(4) of the URACCS and Section 46(F)(4) of the RRACCS classify “Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)” as a light offense.
The Court agreed with the CA that Gagabuan’s infractions constituted the light offense of “Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness).” It cited CSC Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2017, which states that the classification depends on the frequency and effects on government service. Furthermore, the Court upheld the CA’s consideration of mitigating factors under Section 48, Rule 10 of the RRACCS, such as Gagabuan’s acknowledgment of her infractions, remorse, length of service (25 years), and status as a solo parent. Consistent with its jurisprudence, the Court deemed the penalties of reprimand for the first offense and a thirty-day suspension for the second offense as appropriate, with a stern warning against repetition.