G.R. No. 258791 - Taihei Alltech Construction Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The case arises from administrative proceedings concerning habitual tardiness among employees during the first semester of 2002.
A memorandum dated August 28, 2002, prepared by Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, recommended penalties in accordance with Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991 (defining habitual tardiness) and Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (detailing the revised rules on administrative cases in the civil service).

Incurred 10 instances of tardiness in March and 11 in May.
Claimed that her delays were due to her efforts to care for her 92-year-old blind mother, invoking humanitarian considerations.
Had a prior record of reprimand for a first offense in 1999 and a suspension for 20 days in the first semester of 2000, making this instance her third offense.

Recorded 10 tardies in February, 14 in April, 20 in May, and 12 in June.
Justified her frequent lateness by detailing her responsibilities as a single parent with five children, all of whom require direct care, including preparing meals and managing school requirements without available house-help.

Noted for being tardy 11 times each in February and March and 10 times in April.
Claimed that his tardiness was due to caring for his elderly and weak mother, relying on his sister’s arrival to arrange household care.

Accumulated 10 tardies in April and 12 in May.
Explained that, as a single parent with no available house-help, she managed her household and cared for her children, including one undergoing special speech therapy following surgery.

Atty. Perpetua Socorro Jocelyn Guerrero (aGuerrero) – Office of the Court Administrator

Registered 13 tardies in February, 11 in April, and 10 in June.
Admitted her tardiness, attributing it to severe morning sickness during her first trimester after being informed of her pregnancy with her third child.

A memorandum dated July 24, 2002, issued by Deputy Clerk of Court Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, directed all subject employees to submit an explanation within five days on why disciplinary action should not be taken against them.
The receipt of the memorandum was staggered: Guerrero, Belando, Quinto, and De Leon received it on July 26, 2002, while Medina received it on July 29, 2002.
Based on the employees’ explanations and in accordance with CSC guidelines, the recommendations were as follows:

Whether the employees’ personal and humanitarian circumstances (such as caring for elderly or dependent family members, single parenthood, and pregnancy-related health issues) are sufficient to exempt them from administrative sanctions for habitual tardiness.

Evaluation of whether such mitigating circumstances override the statutory and regulatory framework governing habitual tardiness.

Whether the frequency of tardiness committed by each employee meets the definition of habitual tardiness as prescribed under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991.

Analysis of whether the threshold of ten tardies per month, sustained over two consecutive months or within a semester, has been reached.

Determination of the appropriate penalty for each employee considering their prior disciplinary records and the established sanctions under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.

Examining the proportionality of sanctions ranging from reprimand, suspension, to dismissal in light of the employees’ histories and current offenses.