Title
Re: Rosemarie B. Pe
Case
A.M. No. 04-6-298-RTC
Decision Date
Oct 6, 2004
Rosemarie B. Pe, a court statistician, was found guilty of habitual tardiness despite citing pregnancy-related challenges. The Court imposed a 20-day suspension, emphasizing punctuality as essential for public trust in the judiciary.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27524)

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Rosemarie B. Pe, Statistician II at the Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Cebu City, was charged with habitual tardiness.
    • A Certification issued on March 15, 2004 by Hermogena F. Bayani confirmed multiple occurrences of tardiness over specified months.
  • Record of Tardiness
    • In 2002, instances of tardiness were recorded on the following dates:
      • May – 17 times
      • June – 11 times
      • July – 13 times
      • August – 20 times
      • September – 20 times
    • In 2003, tardiness similarly occurred on:
      • January – 19 times
      • February – 17 times
      • March – 20 times
  • Explanation and Justification Provided by Pe
    • Pe submitted her explanation in a letter dated April 8, 2003, citing her pregnancy as the cause of her tardiness.
    • She argued that prior to her pregnancy, she maintained a good record in punctuality.
    • Pe emphasized that the physiological and biological changes associated with pregnancy, which affected her punctuality, were common to all pregnant women.
    • Despite her explanation, it became apparent that her tardiness persisted even after the termination of her pregnancy.
  • Administrative Proceedings and Recommendations
    • A letter dated March 12, 2003 directed Pe to provide a written explanation within 72 hours regarding her tardiness.
    • Following her explanation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a memorandum dated June 1, 2004 recommending a reprimand for the periods of May to September 2002 and January to March 2003.
    • The OCA, referring to a prior resolution (A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC), concluded that a health condition, such as pregnancy, is not a sufficient justification to excuse habitual tardiness.
  • Additional Context from the Record
    • Medical evidence established that Pe was pregnant from April 20, 2002, and delivered on October 14, 2002.
    • Despite the end of her pregnancy, the tardiness continued into 2003, thus invalidating the claim that pregnancy was the sole cause of the delays.
    • The record also indicated that for several months in 2002 and 2003, Pe was tardy more often than she was punctual.

Issues:

  • Justification of Tardiness
    • Whether the explanation of pregnancy could serve as a valid justification for habitual tardiness in the context of administrative service.
    • If a health condition is acceptable as a mitigating circumstance under civil service rules regarding punctuality.
  • Determination of Habitual Tardiness
    • Whether the frequency and persistence of Pe’s tardiness meet the criteria for habitual tardiness as defined by Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998.
    • The proper interpretation of "habitual" in the context of multiple instances recorded over two years.
  • Appropriate Disciplinary Action
    • What the suitable penalty should be given the extent of repeated tardiness despite earlier mitigating explanations.
    • Whether a reprimand is sufficient or a stiffer penalty, such as suspension, is warranted considering the repeated offenses.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.