Title
Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 1st Semester of 2007
Case
A.M. No. 2007-15-SC
Decision Date
Jan 19, 2009
Sixteen Supreme Court employees penalized for habitual tardiness; penalties varied based on prior offenses and mitigating circumstances, emphasizing judiciary's high standards.

Case Digest (A.M. No. 2007-15-SC)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Overview of the Case
    • The administrative matter involves allegations of habitual tardiness by Supreme Court employees for the first semester of 2007.
    • The action arose from a referral by the Leave Division to the Complaints and Investigation Division of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) regarding employees who were tardy 10 times or more in a month.
    • In compliance with Civil Service Commission (CSC) 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 employees were required to submit explanations within five days from receipt of notice.
  • Classification of the Erring Employees
    • Employees with Previous Penalties for Habitual Tardiness
      • Ms. Maria Teresa P. Olipas (Court Stenographer III, Court Management Office)
        • Incurred tardiness in January (10 times) and April (11 times) of 2007.
        • Previously suspended for one month (Resolution dated 4 May 2001) and five days (Resolution dated 16 March 2004).
        • Claimed extenuating circumstances such as being a single parent, health issues (severe left foot pain), and pleaded for compassion.
      • Ms. Marivic C. Azurin (Clerk IV, Leave Division-OCA)
        • Incurred tardiness in January (13 times), February and March (10 times each) of 2007.
        • Failed to submit an explanation after proper service of the memorandum.
        • Previously received a stern warning (Resolution dated 23 October 2001) for similar misconduct.
      • Atty. Wilson Baniel (Court Attorney VI, Office of the Clerk of Court-En Banc)
        • Incurred tardiness in January (14 times), May (13 times), and June (12 times) of 2007.
        • Admitted his fault in a later comment, attributing his delays to domestic and family priorities versus work requirements.
        • Previously received a stern warning (Resolution dated 13 September 2006) for habitual tardiness.
      • Mr. Allan Michael L. Chua (Clerk IV, Office of the Court Administrator)
        • Incurred tardiness in January (13 times) and February (11 times) of 2007.
        • Admitted fault, stating unfamiliarity with attendance procedures due to recent employment and domestic problems.
        • Previously got a stern warning (Resolution dated 5 June 2007) for tardiness during the Second Semester of 2006.
      • Mr. Jovito V. Sanchez (Information System Analyst III, Management Information Systems Office)
        • Incurred tardiness in January (10 times) and March (11 times) of 2007.
        • Explained his delays by citing personal family circumstances following separation from his wife and handling childcare alone.
        • Had been previously sternly warned (Resolution dated 17 April 2001).
  • Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness for the First Time
    • Ms. Maria Victoria S. Buzon (Management & Audit Analyst II, Court Management Office-OCA)
      • Recorded tardiness in February (10 times) and April (10 times) of 2007.
      • Cited health issues (hypertension) and traffic problems due to street diggings; admitted to not carefully monitoring her attendance.
    • Mr. Crisanto C. Carrillo, Jr. (Judicial Officer III, MCLEO)
      • Incurred tardiness in January (12 times) and May (10 times) of 2007.
      • Attributed his delays to personal, health, and academic challenges.
    • Mr. Manolito V. De Guzman (Data Entry Machine Operator IV, Office of ACA Antonio Dujua, OCA)
      • Recorded tardiness in January (11 times) and May (10 times) of 2007.
      • Justified his record by stating that his wife’s illness and lack of household assistance forced him to manage all family responsibilities.
    • Mr. Roderick I. Duero (Utility Worker II, Office of the Chief Attorney)
      • Incurred tardiness in January (11 times), February (10 times), May (10 times), and June (11 times) of 2007.
      • Offered no dispute to the record and explained that as a family man he had to manage his children’s needs due to domestic issues.
    • Mr. Rodel A. Gombio (Human Resource Management Officer II, Office of Administrative Services)
      • Recorded tardiness in May (10 times) and June (10 times) of 2007.
      • Admitted his fault, attributing it to family circumstances including his wife’s impending travel and the need to run household errands.
    • Mr. Eduardo M. Iglesias (SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Personnel Division-OCA)
      • Incurred tardiness in April (11 times) and May (10 times) of 2007.
      • Claimed unawareness of exceeding the threshold despite adhering to CSC Circular No. 4, and apologized for his lapse.
    • Atty. Teresita Asuncion M. Lacandula-Rodriguez (Court Attorney VI, Office of Justice Renato C. Corona)
      • Recorded tardiness in January (10 times) and February (16 times) of 2007.
      • Explained that road repairs and family circumstances lengthened her commute.
    • Mr. Ronald C. Napolitano (Information Officer IV, Public Information Office)
      • Incurred tardiness in January (11 times), February (13 times), March (16 times), and June (12 times) of 2007.
      • Justified his delays by citing extended overtime work, which impacted his ability to wake early.
    • Ms. Digna C. Palafox (Clerk IV, Court Management Office)
      • Recorded tardiness in April (10 times) and May (10 times) of 2007.
      • Attributed her delays to severe symptoms of menopause that disrupted her sleep.
    • Ms. Sandra O. Pendon (Clerk IV, Office of Court Administrator Jose P. Perez)
      • Incurred tardiness in January (10 times) and March (10 times) of 2007.
      • Explained that she had no household help and was forced to look after her two nieces.
    • Mr. Rolando N. Yacat (Clerk III, Office of Administrative Services-OCA)
      • Recorded tardiness in February (11 times) and June (10 times) of 2007.
      • Cited road renovations and consequent heavy traffic from his residence in Kawit, Cavite, as the cause of his delays.
  • Administrative Proceedings and Recommendations
    • Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, issued a memorandum recommending penalties based on the employees’ records and the applicable CSC rules.
    • The memorandum classified the employees by prior instances of tardiness and recommended:
      • Suspension for employees found guilty for the third or second offense.
      • Stern warnings for those committing the offense for the first time.
    • Some employees submitted their manifestations within the prescribed period, while others were deemed to have waived their right to comment.
    • The matter was ultimately submitted for resolution based on the pleadings filed and the administrative records.
  • Court Findings on the Nature of Habitual Tardiness
    • The Court reaffirmed that under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, an employee is considered habitually tardy if he/she incurs tardiness 10 times a month for at least two nonisolated months.
    • By their conduct, all the employees were found to have fallen below the accepted standard, especially given the high expectations for those working within the judiciary.
    • The duty of court employees to be models of punctuality and discipline was underscored, emphasizing that public service is a public trust.
  • Humanitarian Considerations and Disciplinary Adjustments
    • Although various personal, health, and domestic issues were cited by the employees, the Court held that such justifications could at best be considered as mitigating factors but did not excuse the conduct.
    • The Court modified the recommended penalties to align with both the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.
    • The adjustments included:
      • Suspension for more severe cases (e.g., Ms. Olipas, being a third-time offender, received a 15-day suspension for humanitarian reasons despite the standard calling for dismissal).
      • Suspension for second-time offenders (e.g., Ms. Azurin, Atty. Baniel, Mr. Chua, and Mr. Sanchez, each suspended for 5 days).
      • Reprimands with final warnings for first-time offenders.

Issues:

  • Whether the employees’ instances of tardiness, as documented for the first semester of 2007, qualify as habitual tardiness in accordance with CSC guidelines.
    • The issue centers on the interpretation of “habitual tardiness” under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991.
    • It involves determining if 10 instances of tardiness in a month, sustained for at least two months (or two consecutive months), satisfy the definition.
  • Whether the various justifications offered by the employees (family responsibilities, health issues, traffic problems, overtime commitments, and unfamiliarity with government procedures) constitute valid bases to excuse or mitigate the imposition of penalties.
    • The Court had to assess the sufficiency of humanitarian reasons against the need to maintain strict observance of official time.
    • The analysis involved balancing individual hardships against the integrity and public trust placed in court employees.
  • Whether the recommended and modified penalties conform to both the letter and the spirit of the applicable CSC rules.
    • The issue examines whether the disciplinary sanctions (suspensions, reprimands, and warnings) were proper in view of the employees’ prior records and the policies set by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.
    • It also questioned if humanitarian considerations could mitigate the harshness of penalties prescribed for repeated offenses.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms