Case Digest (A.M. No. 2007-15-SC)
Facts:
Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 1st Semester of 2007: Ms. Marivic C. Azurin, et al., A.M. No. 2007-15-SC, January 19, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Court Administrator’s Leave Division referred to the Complaints and Investigation Division of the Office of Administrative Services a list of Supreme Court employees who incurred tardiness ten (10) times or more in a month during the first semester of 2007 (January–June). Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Eden T. Candelaria prepared a Memorandum (dated November 16, 2007) recommending administrative penalties under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991 (policy on absenteeism and tardiness) and Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service). The OCA required written explanations within five days from the employees on the list.
Sixteen employees were reported. Five had prior disciplinary actions for habitual tardiness: Ms. Maria Teresa P. Olipas (Court Stenographer III) — previously suspended in 2001 and again in 2004; Ms. Marivic C. Azurin (Clerk IV) — sternly warned in 2001; Atty. Winston R. Baniel (Court Attorney VI) — stern warning in 2006; Mr. Allan Michael L. Chua (Clerk IV) — stern warning in 2007; and Mr. Jovito V. Sanchez (Information System Analyst III) — stern warning in 2001. The other eleven employees were charged with habitual tardiness for the first time. The employees’ explanations varied: domestic responsibilities (single parenting, childcare), health conditions (hypertension, menopause, foot pain), traffic and road repairs, overtime work, and unfamiliarity with civil service attendance procedures.
Atty. Candelaria recommended penalties ranging from suspension (for repeat offenders) to stern warnings and reprimands for first offenders. The Court required the parties to manifest within ten days whether they would submit the matter on the pleadings; only five employees filed such manifestations and the others were deemed to have waived supplemental submissions. The matter was submitted for decision on the pleadings.
The Court found that all charged employees met the definition of “habitual tardiness” under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 1991 and that their proffered reasons, while potentially mitigating, did not excuse the offense. Applying CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, Section 52(C)(4), Rule VI, the Court modified some recommended sanctions: Ms. Olipas (third offense) was suspended 15 days (mitigated ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the respondents are “habitually tardy” within the meaning of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991.
- Whether the penalties recommended by Atty. Candelaria should be imposed or modified under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, prevailing precedents, and the employees’...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)