EN BANC
|
RE:
EMPLOYEES INCURRING HABITUAL
TARDINESS IN THE FIRST
SEMESTER OF 2005 |
A.M. No. 2005-25-SC |
|
|
Present: |
PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA, and
Promulgated:
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
For resolution is the Memorandum dated 3 October 2005 of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria (“Atty.
Candelaria”), Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of the Office of Administrative
Services (OAS), recommending the imposition of penalties on eleven employees of
the Court who incurred habitual tardiness within the period January to June
2005. The basis of the offense is Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum
Circular No. 23, series of 1998, defining habitual tardiness as follows:
Any employee shall be habitually
tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10)
times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2)
consecutive months during the year.
On 26 July 2005,
Atty. Candelaria individually sent respondent employees a Memorandum citing
their tardiness and requiring them to explain in writing why no disciplinary
action should be taken against them. The following are respondents’ names and
respective explanations:
A. Employees with previous penalties for habitual tardiness
1. NORA B. ANG (“Ang”) of the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc incurred tardiness 10 times in February
and 11 times in April 2005. Ang stated that in the early months of 2005, she
went on medication for kidney and gall bladder stones. A vehicular accident in
2000 further caused her body pains,
physical discomfort, and slow movement. She also stated that bone-density
examinations showed that she had weak bones. She pleaded for consideration and
admitted that she realized “it would be better to retire early rather than
continue working and be a liability [to] our esteemed office,” yet she asked to
be allowed “to conclude [her] government service with peace and gratification.”
Previously, Ang was
(1) REPRIMANDED pursuant to Court Resolution dated 8 August 2000 for her first
incursion of habitual tardiness in 1999; (2) SUSPENDED for 10 days pursuant to Court
Resolution dated 17 April 2001 for her second incursion in the first semester
of 2000; (3) SUSPENDED for three
months, and given a final warning, on 27 November 2002 for her third
incursion in the second semester of 2000; and (4) SUSPENDED for six months,
again with a final warning, in a Court Resolution dated 23 October 2001 for her
fourth incursion in the first semester of 2001.
2. ROLANDINO D. DUE
(“Due”) of the Judicial Records Office incurred tardiness 12 times in April and
10 times in June 2005. Due explained that on these times, he had to assist his
sister in moving from one residence to another. Previously, Due was REPRIMANDED
pursuant to Court Resolution dated 8 August 2000 for habitual tardiness
committed in 1999.
3. RUDIN S. VENGUA (“Vengua”) of the Financial Management Office-OCA, incurred
tardiness 10 times in February and 12 times in June 2005. Vengua attributes his
tardiness to the heavy traffic on his way to work. Previously, Vengua was
STERNLY WARNED for habitual tardiness in a Court Resolution dated 23 October
2001.
B. Employees incurring habitual tardiness for the first time
1. ARLENE R.
ABUZMAN (“Abuzman”), Human Resource Management Officer detailed at Training
Division-OAS, incurred tardiness 10 times in January and 10 times in April
2005. Abuzman stated that she was suffering from insomnia due to
hyperthyroidism and anemia, thus she had difficulty waking up early.
2. ATTY. EPHYRO
LUIS B. AMATONG (“Atty. Amatong”) of the Office of Associate Justice Conchita
Carpio Morales incurred tardiness 13 times in April and 14 times in May 2005.
Atty. Amatong explained that on 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 27 April, and on 18, 20,
24, 27, and 30 May, he was on official business, conducting research at the
University of the Philippines Law Library. The explanation of Atty. Amatong is
duly noted by Associate Justice Carpio Morales. Incidentally, Atty. Amatong
resigned from the Court on 1 August 2005.
3. ANDRE A. FERNAN
(“Fernan”) of the Public Information Office incurred tardiness 10 times in
March and in June 2005. Fernan explained that he sometimes reported late
because he had to spend time looking after his weak and elderly aunt who had
supported him in college.
4. DIONELITO T.
MANLEGRO (“Manlegro”) of the Hall of Justice, RTC Davao City, incurred
tardiness 15 times in January and 11 times in February 2005. Manlegro explained
that he attended to his wife who suffered from profuse bleeding and underwent
an operation. Attached to his Comment was the corresponding medical certificate
attesting to his wife’s illness.
5. WARREN P.
ALVAREZ (“Alvarez”) of the Cash Division, Financial Management Office-OCA,
incurred tardiness 10 times in April and 11 times in June 2005. Alvarez
attributed his tardiness to heavy traffic conditions and to insomnia which made it difficult for
him to wake up early. He further explained that he has no househelper and must
attend personally to the needs of his two daughters.
6. FLORENTINO S.
BAUTISTA III (“Bautista”) of the Office of Assistant Court Administrator
Antonio H. Dujua incurred tardiness 14 times in January and 12 times in April
2005. Bautista alleged that on 7, 13, 24, and 28 January and on 19 April, he
intended to go on a half-day leave. However, he forgot to file the required
leave applications.
7. FERNANDO P.
PASCUAL (“Pascual”) of the Records Division-OCA incurred tardiness 11 times in
January and in May 2005. Pascual attributed his tardiness to the recurring
headaches he experienced due to hypertension.
8. JACQUELINE R.
SUING (“Suing”) of the Legal Office-OCA incurred tardiness 10 times in April
and in June 2005. Suing explained that she was suffering from insomnia. She
further claimed that she was ill on 2 to 15 May 2005, for which she was
required to take five days of complete bed rest. The corresponding medical
certificate was attached to her Comment.
After evaluating respondents’ comments,
Atty. Candelaria gave the following recommendations:
x x x all of the
above employees offered the same reasons falling under either one of the
folowing categories: sickness or illness, moral obligations to family and
relatives, domestic or household responsibilities, traffic, health or physical
conditions.
x x x To consider
the pleas x x x would be unfair to those employees who, with or without being
in the same situations, have managed to be punctual in reporting for work.
x x x x
However, after
evaluating [Atty. Amatong’s] explanation that he was actually on official
business researching at the UP Law Center on 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 27 April,
and 18, 20, 24, 27, and 30 May 2005, [which fact] was attested to by his Chief
of Office, Associate Justice Carpio Morales, this Office deem[s] his
explanation meritorious. Being on official business on the aforementioned dates
justifies the actual time he recorded in the office logbook or his DTR. The
entries pertaining to the dates referred above when he went to the UP Law
Center to do research works can in effect be totally disregarded. In fact, he
could have merely stated in the office logbook or his DTR that he was on
official business for the aforesaid dates, yet he opted to reflect the actual
time he reported back to his office.
In the case of
Ms. Ang, this is actually her fifth incursion of tardiness x x x. Citing her
critical health problems and her length of service to the Court, she pleads for
early retirement, stating that she does not want to be a liability to the
Court. x x x
x x x x
It is very clear
that a strict application of the above provision would justify [Ms. Ang’s] dismissal
from the service. However, in the past Resolutions of the Court, it has
recognized humanitarian reasons and extended compassion in the imposition of
the penalty of dismissal. As a matter of fact, in a similar case,[1] the employees
who committed tardiness for the third and fourth time instead of [being
dismissed] were only suspended for three months and ten days, respectively.
x x x x
x x x considering
[Ms. Ang’s] 23 years of service with the Court and considering further that her
explanation for her habitual tardiness involving her serious health problem has
been substantially supported by evidence consisting of medical records, this
Office finds the penalty of six months justified.
With respect to
her plea for early retirement, [we are] informed that Ms. Ang, who is now 61
years old as of this writing, has not submitted yet her application thereto nor
manifested her desire to this Office to pursue with her request. Her desire for
early retirement must not be made dependent on the outcome of her case for
habitual tardiness, but must be made independently by actually applying for the
same so this Office could appropriately act on it. Besides, it may create a bad
precedent if this Office would make a favorable recommendation allowing her to
avail of early retirement for those who only wish to avoid being penalized by
the Court.
From among those
who have been found habitually tardy for the first time, this Office takes
exception of the case of Mr. Pascual in determining the imposable penalty x x x.
[From] A.M. No. 2005-16-SC,[2] [we see that]
the period for which [Mr. Pascual] was penalized for absenteeism is the same
period [in] which he incurred his tardiness in the case at bar. The explanation
which he offered thereat, which was not accepted by the Court, is the same x x
x explanation he gave for his tardiness.
x x x x
Premises
considered, this Office respectfully recommends that:
a. Ms. Nora B.
Ang, for having been found guilty of habitual tardiness for the fifth time, be
SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months with a WARNING that a similar
violation will result to her dismissal from the service;
b. Mr. Rolandino
D. Due and Mr. Rudin S. Vengua, for having been found habitually tardy for the
second time, be SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for humanitarian considerations, with a
WARNING that repetition of the same offense in the future shall be dealt with
[more] severely;
c. The following employees be WARNED for their
first offense of habitual tardiness:
1.
Arlene R. Abuzman
2.
Andre A. Fernan
3.
Dionelito T. Manlegro
4.
Warren P. Alvarez
5.
Florentino S. Bautista III
6.
Jacqueline R. Suing
d. Mr. Fernando
P. Pascual be REPRIMANDED, with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely;
e. For having found the explanation of Atty.
Ephyro Luis B. Amatong meritorious, this administrative case against him [be]
dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court agrees
with the findings of Atty. Candelaria except as to the recommended penalties.
There is no
question that respondent employees violated the rule on tardiness. Except for
Atty. Amatong, all of the respondents failed to provide an explanation that
could be deemed satisfactory. The Court has repeatedly held that moral
obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health
conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to
excuse habitual tardiness.[3]
As enshrined in the
Constitution, a public office is a public trust. Inherent in
this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use
of every moment thereof for public service, if only to recompense the
Government, and ultimately, the people, who shoulder the cost of maintaining
the Judiciary.[4] Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court
officials and employees must at all times strictly observe official time.[5]
In Basco v. Gregorio, we held:
The exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon court employees and judges are reflective of the premium placed on the image of the court of justice, and that image is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. It thus becomes the imperative and sacred duty of everyone charged with the dispensation of justice, from the judge to the lowliest clerk, to maintain the court’s good name and standing as true temples of justice.[6]
Under CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, habitual tardiness is classified as
a light offense with the following penalties:
First
offense – Reprimand
Second
offense – Suspension for 1 to 30 days
Third
offense – Dismissal
However, in several
administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual
penalties in the presence of mitigating factors.[7] Factors such as the respondent’s length of service in the
judiciary, the respondent’s acknowledgment of his or her infractions and
feeling of remorse, and family circumstances, among others, have had varying
significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty.
Pascual was previously
disciplined in 2005 for habitual absenteeism. Although suspension is the proper
imposable penalty for the first incursion of such offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases,[8] the Court instead fined Pascual P2,000 after considering mitigating factors in his favor. The
present case concerns only Pascual’s first offense of habitual tardiness, yet
this charge coming shortly after his earlier sanction may very well demonstrate
his lack of regard for the Court’s strict policy on punctuality and attendance.
We come to the case
of Ang. The Court notes that this is her fifth offense of habitual tardiness. For her third and fourth
incursion, Ang was penalized with suspension for three months and six months,
respectively. On both occasions, she was given a final warning by the Court.
If the Court were
to be steadfast in performing its duty to apply the law, no matter how harsh,
then the only course of action at this juncture is to dismiss Ang from the
service. Clearly, public
interest in an efficient and honest judiciary dictates that notice of future
harsher penalties should not be followed by another forewarning of the same
kind, ad infinitum, but by discipline through appropriate penalties.[9] The Court has dismissed employees in the past for habitual
absenteeism, lamenting that the offense causes inefficiency in the public
service.[10] Habitual tardiness of this frequency must be treated likewise, if
we are to maintain the administration of justice orderly and efficient.
WHEREFORE, we find the following employees administratively liable for
habitual tardiness and impose upon them the corresponding penalties, as
follows:
a. The Court DISMISSES Ms. Nora B. Ang
from the service for her fifth offense of habitual tardiness, with forfeiture
of retirement benefits except accrued
leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
b. The Court SEVERELY REPRIMANDS Mr.
Rolandino D. Due and Mr. Rudin S. Vengua for their second offense of habitual
tardiness;
c. The Court SEVERELY REPRIMANDS Mr. Fernando P.
Pascual, in view of his previous incursion of habitual absenteeism;
d. Ms. Arlene R. Abuzman, Mr. Warren P.
Alvarez, Mr. Florentino
S. Bautista III, Mr. Andre A. Fernan, Mr. Dionelito T. Manlegro, and Ms.
Jacqueline R. Suing are REPRIMANDED, this being their first offense of habitual tardiness.
Respondents are
likewise WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction from the Court.
The charge against
Atty. Ephyro Luis B. Amatong is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA- MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA
Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
|
CANCIO C.
GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice iate |
[1] Re: Imposition of Corresponding
Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the First and Second Semester of 2003, A.M. No. 00-06-09-SC, 16 March
2004, 425 SCRA 508.
[2] Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Fernando P. Pascual, A.M. No. 2005-15-SC, 22
September 2005, 470 SCRA 569.
[3] Domingo-Regala v. Sultan, A.M. No. P-05-1940, 28 February
2005, 452 SCRA 385; Monserate v. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-04-1823, 12 July 2004, 434 SCRA 117; In Re: Imposition of
Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second
Semester of 2002,
A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC, 409 SCRA 9, 14 August 2003.
[4] Administrative Circular No. 2-99, “Strict Observance
of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness,” 15
January 1999.
[5] Administrative Circular No. 1-99, “Enhancing the
Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their
Officials and Employees,” 15 January 1999.
[6] 245 SCRA 614, 619 (1995), as cited in Re: Habitual Tardiness First
Semester 2002,
440 Phil. 349, 357 (2002).
[7] Concerned Employee vs. Valentin, A.M. No. 2005-01-SC, 8 June
2005, 459 SCRA 307; Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting and
Angelita C. Esmerio, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC and A.M. No. 2001-8-SC, 22 July 2005, 464
SCRA 1.
[8] Section 52, Rule IV of Resolution No. 991936 of the
Civil Service Commission, effective 26 September 1999.
[9] Poso v. Judge Mijares, 436 Phil. 295 (2002).
[10] Florendo v. Cadano, A.M. No. P-05-1983, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 448; Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, 448 Phil. 583 (2003); Judge Ortiguerra v. Genota, Jr., 434 Phil. 787 (2002).