G.R. No. L-6025-26 - People vs. Herdez

On March 12, 2003, Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Zenaida N. ElepaAo sent a letter to Judge Galicano C. Arriesgado of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu City.
The letter detailed that Ma. Socorro E. Arnaez, Court Stenographer III of the same branch, had incurred habitual tardiness in violation of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998.
DCA ElepaAo requested that Ms. Arnaez be given an opportunity to explain within 72 hours why she should not be reprimanded for her repeated lateness.

On April 10, 2003, Ms. Arnaez responded by sending a letter to Judge Arriesgado.
In her explanation, she cited personal circumstances including being the sole caretaker and provider for her seven children.
She emphasized that her responsibilities at home—preparing food and ensuring that all is in order—coupled with her husband’s tardy visits, contributed to her late arrival at work.

On March 15, 2004, Hermogena F. Bayani, Supreme Court Judicial Staff Officer, Leave Division, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), issued a Certification documenting the dates and frequency of Ms. Arnaez’s tardiness:

These occurrences were counted in accordance with the guidelines provided by the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which defines habitual tardiness as 10 instances in a month for at least two consecutive months or within a semester.

In his Report dated June 30, 2004, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. evaluated the situation based on the CSC guidelines.
The Evaluation emphasized that habitual tardiness undermines the stringent standard of conduct required of those associated with the administration of justice.
It reiterated that the explanation provided by Ms. Arnaez failed to present sufficient grounds to excuse the repeated violation.
The report referenced earlier jurisprudence (A.M. No. 00-06-09-SC) clarifying that personal issues such as moral obligations, household chores, traffic woes, health conditions, or domestic and financial concerns do not justify habitual tardiness.

Under Section 52 (C) (4) of Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows:

Since this was the first recorded offense of habitual tardiness by Ms. Arnaez, the appropriate action was to issue a reprimand with a warning that any further similar offense would invoke a more severe penalty.

Based on the certification of tardiness, the detailed evaluation by the Court Administrator, and the applicable CSC memoranda, it was concluded that Ms. Arnaez was administratively liable.
The decision underscored that as an employee of a judicial institution, she was expected to be a role model in observance of office hours and efficient public service delivery.

Whether the personal reasons provided by Ms. Arnaez—including her responsibilities as the sole caregiver for her seven children and the erratic behavior of her husband—are adequate to excuse her habitual tardiness.

Whether the conduct of Ms. Arnaez falls within the parameters of habitual tardiness as defined by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998.
How the prescribed punitive measures under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, should be applied in this instance.

Whether her repeated tardiness compromises the efficiency, effectiveness, and public trust in the administration of justice.
The obligation of judicial employees to serve as exemplars of punctuality and discipline.

Whether previous rulings, such as that in A.M. No. 00-06-09-SC, properly address and set a precedent in cases where personal hardships are cited as reasons for habitual tardiness.