A.M. No. P-11-2945 - Leave Division - Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Pua, Jr.

The case involves Francisco A. Pua, Jr., Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City.
The issue arose from his habitual tardiness as documented by the Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

An Agenda Report dated April 19, 2011, summarizes the documented instances of tardiness from a report dated January 10, 2011.
Specific records show:

The need to attend to his two children each morning.
The lack of a househelp, which increased the difficulty of balancing work and family responsibilities.

Pua sought the court’s indulgence while undertaking to make efforts to improve his punctuality.

The OCA found Pua guilty of habitual tardiness despite his explanation, considering the reasons offered insufficient to excuse the repetitive offense.
It recommended that Pua be reprimanded and warned that any recurrence of the offense should attract a more severe penalty.
The endorsement is anchored on Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which defines habitual tardiness as accumulating tardiness ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months within a year.

The position requires impeccable reliability due to its essential role in ensuring the efficient administration of justice.
The responsibilities include managing order, handling court records accurately, and maintaining the integrity and efficiency of court procedures, all of which are compromised by habitual tardiness.

Whether the documented habitual tardiness of Francisco A. Pua, Jr. constitutes an administrative offense under the applicable Civil Service rules.

Determining if the factual accumulation of tardiness meets the threshold set forth under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998.
Assessing the sufficiency of Pua’s justification (family-related issues) as a mitigating factor against the charge of habitual tardiness.

The appropriateness of the recommended disciplinary action considering both the administrative guidelines and the critical role of a Clerk of Court in the judicial system.