OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Petitioner, - versus - MYRENE C. BALISI, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
Branch 29,
Respondent. |
A.M. No. 08-1-11-MeTC
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, * carpio
MORALES, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: August 11, 2008 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
R E S O L U T I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
A
Report of Tardiness submitted by the Leave Division of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) on November 28, 2007, shows that Myrene
C. Balisi, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC), Branch 29, Manila, had been tardy in
going to her office, eleven (11) times in February and fourteen (14) times in
April 2007.
Required
to comment on the Report, Ms. Balisi admitted her
tardiness. She, however, reasoned out
that before she could leave for the office, she has to attend to her 5-year old
daughter whose nanny left and went home to the province. She could report for work on time only when
she leaves her daughter to the care of her mother.
In
her evaluation report, Court Administrator Zenaida N.
Elepaño found that respondent “had indeed violated
the rule on tardiness.” According to
her, Ms. Balisi’s explanation does not merit
consideration to justify her tardiness.
Hence, Court Administrator Elepaño submitted
the following recommendation:
Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court recommending that this be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; that Ms. Myrene C. Balisi, Court Stenographer II, MeTC, Branch 29, Manila, be REPRIMANDED for habitual tardiness and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Under
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, an officer or employee of the
civil service is considered 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 for at least two (2) consecutive months.[1] To ensure its observance, it was circularized
in the Court on
The
policy on absenteeism and tardiness was reiterated by the Court with the
issuance of Administrative Circular No. 2-99 dated February 15, 1999 which
provides that: Absenteeism and Tardiness, even if such do not qualify as
“habitual” or “frequent” under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, S. 1991, shall
be dealt with severely, and falsification of daily time records to cover-up for
such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty and serious
misconduct. This was further reiterated
by the Court in Administrative Circular No. 14-2002, dated
In
a long line of cases involving employees of the Court, the respondents offered
varied excuses for coming late to their offices. However, the Court had consistently ruled
that non-office obligations, household chores, and domestic concerns are not
sufficient reasons to excuse or justify habitual tardiness.[2] Hence, Ms. Balisi’s
reason for her tardiness, that she has to attend to the need of her 5-year old
daughter before going to her office, cannot free her from her infractions. The
Court cannot countenance such infraction as it seriously compromises efficiency
and hampers public service. By being
habitually tardy, Ms. Balisi has fallen short of the
stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the
administration of justice.[3]
We
have repeatedly reminded officials and employees of the Judiciary that by
reason of the nature and functions of their office, they must be role models in
the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a
public trust.[4] A way of doing this is through the strict
observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every working
moment, if only to give back the true worth of what the Government, and
ultimately, the people, pay in maintaining the Judiciary.[5] Thus, to inspire public respect for the
justice system, court officials and employees are at all times behooved to
strictly observe official time, as punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and
tardiness are impermissible.[6]
Under
Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 19, Series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows: first offense, reprimand; second offense,
suspension for 1 to 300 days; and third offense, dismissal from the service.
WHEREFORE,
we find respondent Myrene C. Balisi,
Court Stenographer II, Branch 29, MeTC,
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
* Designated additional member of the Second
Division per Special Order No. 512 dated
[1] Re: Imposition of Corresponding
Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2002, A.M.
No. 00-6-09-SC,
[2] Ibid, citing Re:
Imposition of Corresponding Penalties on Employees of this Court for Habitual
Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2000, 393 SCRA 9 (2002).
[3] Ibid.
[4] 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 1; Re:Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2002, supra note 1.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.