G.R. No. 83614 - Alonto, Jr. vs. Memoracion

The Report submitted by the Leave Division, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated October 19, 2011, documented that respondent Cesar E. Sales, Cash Clerk III at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, was habitually tardy during the period January to September 2011.
Detailed tardiness records show:

January: 20 instances in 21 working days (only on January 3 did Sales report on time at 8:00 a.m.).
February: Late on most days; reported punctuality only on the 15th, 23rd, and 25th, with sick leaves on the 8th, 9th, and 28th.
March: 10 incidents of tardiness, along with a sick leave on the 7th and forced leave from the 14th to 18th.
April: Only on-time appearance on the 7th; 13 instances of being late plus five days of sick leave (5th and 26th to 29th).
May: Tardiness on all days he reported to work, coupled with five days of sick leave.
June: Punctual only on the 6th, with sick leaves on the 7th to 10th, as well as the 17th and 27th.
July: Repeated tardiness on reporting days and six separate sick-leave instances.
August: Tardiness on all reporting days, along with seven days of sick leave and three days of vacation leave.
September: Out of 21 working days, Sales reported only 12 times, being late on all; also recorded six days of sick leave and three days of vacation leave.

On the days Sales was on leave, his Daily Time Records (DTRs) were annotated with “sick leave applied,” “vacation leave applied,” or “forced leave applied,” but it was not verified whether these applications were approved by his superiors.
Procedural requirements under Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991, mandate that leave applications be duly approved by the authorized officer, which was not demonstrated in Sales’ case.

Despite repeated warnings and clear alerts that recurrence would result in more severe actions, there was a persistent pattern of tardiness and absenteeism.

In his comment dated January 17, 2012, Sales admitted to his habitual tardiness.
He expressed awareness of the possibility of dismissal and stated that despite his health being affected by the anxiety of potential job loss, he continued to hope for leniency and a chance to continue serving the Judiciary.
Sales sought liberal treatment by expressing remorse, yet his repeated offenses indicated no corrective action on his part.

All government employees are expected to work a minimum of 40 hours per week, typically from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991, habitual tardiness is defined as arriving late at least 10 times in a month for a minimum period of two months in a semester or two consecutive months during the year.
Additional provisions classify frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness as grave offenses, with penalties ranging from suspension to dismissal.
The decision also references administrative circulars and rules reinforcing strict observance of official time and accountability as important values in the Judiciary.

Whether Sales’ pattern of habitual tardiness and absences, as evidenced by his DTRs and lack of proper leave approvals, amounts to a grave administrative offense under the prevailing regulatory framework.

Determination if repeated tardiness (exceeding 10 instances a month in most months) constitutes a violation of established standards for civil service employees.
Evaluation of his repeated unauthorized absences, which exceeded the allowable monthly leave credits.

Whether the repeated instances of tardiness, despite previous sanctions and clear warnings, justify the imposition of the severe penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave credits) and prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.

Consideration of the employee’s length of service as a factor potentially mitigating or aggravating the penalty.
Analysis of whether Sales’ expressed remorse and health concerns could serve as mitigating circumstances despite his continuous disregard for punctuality and proper leave processes.

Whether the administrative process, including proper documentation and approval of leave, was followed as required by existing civil service rules and memoranda.