A.M. No. 2007-15-SC - Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 1st Semester of 2007

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2007-15-SC)

Factual Background

The Leave Division submitted to the OAS a list of Supreme Court employees who were reported to have incurred tardiness ten times or more in a month during the first semester of 2007. The OAS required the named employees to explain in writing why disciplinary action should not be taken. The attendance records showed multiple instances of tardiness in specified months for each employee. Several respondents had prior disciplinary history for habitual tardiness.

Procedural History

Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, prepared a Memorandum dated 16 November 2007 recommending administrative penalties in accordance with the cited CSC memoranda. The Court required the parties to manifest within ten days if they would submit the matter for resolution on the pleadings. Some respondents filed comments and manifestations; others failed to file and were deemed to have waived supplemental pleadings. The matter was deemed submitted for decision based on the pleadings filed.

Employees’ Explanations

The respondents offered various explanations for their habitual tardiness. These included domestic responsibilities such as single parenthood and care of children; health conditions including hypertension and menopausal symptoms; temporary household burdens or lack of household help; travel and traffic problems due to road repairs and construction; overtime work and schedule fatigue; and unfamiliarity with government attendance procedures for recently hired personnel. One respondent failed to submit any explanation and was deemed to have waived the right to comment.

Recommendation by Atty. Candelaria

Atty. Candelaria recommended differentiated sanctions. For Ms. Maria Teresa P. Olipas, who had prior penalties and committed a third offense, suspension for fifteen days with final warning was recommended for humanitarian consideration. Four employees with a second offense were recommended to be severely reprimanded with final warning. The other employees, first-time offenders, were recommended to be sternly warned with notice that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Issues Presented

The primary issues were whether the respondents were guilty of habitual tardiness as defined by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, and, if so, what administrative penalties the Court should impose under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 and applicable standards for judicial employees.

Court’s Findings on Liability

The Court found that the respondents were habitually tardy as defined in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991 — namely, incurring tardiness ten times in a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year. The Court held that habitual tardiness constitutes an administrative offense that undermines efficiency and public service. The Court rejected the respondents’ explanations as excuses excusing liability, though it recognized that those circumstances may mitigate punishment.

Penalties Imposed and Modifications

Applying the penalty scheme in Rule VI, Section 52(C)(4) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, the Court modified Atty. Candelaria’s recommendations to conform with the Civil Service rules. The Court suspended Ms. Maria Teresa P. Olipas for fifteen days without pay for a third offense and gave a final warning that future repetition would warrant dismissal. The Court suspended Ms. Marivic C. Azurin, Atty. Winston R. Baniel, and Mr. Jovito V. Sanchez for five days without pay for a second offense, with a final warning. Mr. Allan Michael L. Chua was likewise found guilty and suspended for five days, but the Court noted the sanction could no longer be imposed because his appointment expired on 30 November 2007, and ordered that a copy of the Decision be entered into his personal file for record purposes. The Court reprimanded the following first-time offenders and warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely: Ms. Maria Victoria S. Buzon; Mr. Crisanto C. Carrillo, Jr.; Mr. Manolito V. De Guzman; Mr. Roderick L. Duero; Mr. Rodel A. Gombio; Mr. Eduardo M. Iglesias; Atty. Teresita Asuncion M. Lacandula-Rodriguez; Mr. Ronald Napolitano; Mr. Digna C. Palafox; Ms. Sandra O. Pendon; and Mr. Rolando N. Yacat.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its disposition on the Civil Service memoranda defining habitual tardiness and prescribing penalties. The Court emphasized that officials and employees of the Judiciary must exemplify the constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust, citing Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution and r

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 2007-15-SC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant was the Leave Division which referred to the Office of Administrative Services the list of employees who incurred habitual tardiness during the first semester of 2007 for appropriate action.
The investigating officer who prepared the administrative memorandum was Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer.
The respondents were the following Supreme Court employees alleged to be habitually tardy: Ms. Marivic C. Azurin, Atty. Winston R. Baniel, Ms. Maria Victoria S. Buzon, Mr. Crisanto C. Carrillo, Jr., Mr. Allan Michael L. Chua, Mr. Manolito V. De Guzman, Mr. Roderick I. Duero, Mr. Rodel A. Gombio, Mr. Eduardo M. Iglesias, Atty. Teresita Asuncion M. Lacandula-Rodriguez, Mr. Ronald C. Napolitano, Ms. Maria Teresa P. Olipas, Ms. Digna C. Palafox, Ms. Sandra O. Pendon, Mr. Jovito V. Sanchez, and Mr. Rolando N. Yacat.
The Administrative matter proceeded upon a Memorandum dated 16 November 2007 recommending disciplinary action, upon required written explanations from the employees, and upon subsequent filings and manifestations.
The Court required manifestations on submission for decision and deemed those who failed to file their manifestations to have waived supplemental pleadings, thereby submitting the matter for decision on the pleadings filed.

Key Factual Allegations

The Leave Division reported each respondent as having incurred tardiness at least ten times in a month for at least two months in the first semester of 2007 as listed in the Memorandum.
Ms. Maria Teresa P. Olipas was recorded tardy in January (ten) and April (11) of 2007 and had prior suspensions for habitual tardiness in resolutions dated 4 May 2001 and 16 March 2004.
Ms. Marivic C. Azurin was recorded tardy in January (13), February (ten), and March (ten) of 2007 and failed to submit an explanation after notice.
Atty. Winston R. Baniel was recorded tardy in January (14), May (13), and June (12) of 2007 and previously received a stern warning in 2006.
Mr. Allan Michael L. Chua was recorded tardy in January (13) and February (11) of 2007 and previously received a stern warning in June 2007.
Mr. Jovito V. Sanchez was recorded tardy in January (ten) and March (11) of 2007 and had previously been sternly warned.
The remaining respondents were each recorded as habitually tardy during specific months in the first semester of 2007 as detailed in the Memorandum and admitted the accuracy of the attendance records in varying degrees.

Employees' Explanations

Ms. Olipas attributed tardiness to single parent responsibilities and intermittent severe pain in her left foot and pleaded for compassion.
Ms. Azurin failed to submit any explanation and thus was deemed to have waived her right to comment.
Atty. Baniel apologized and attributed tardiness to domestic and family problems and to oversight in submitting his explanation.
Mr. Chua cited unfamiliarity with government attendance procedures and domestic problems during his initial period of employment.
Mr. Sanchez explained separation from his spouse, sole care of three children, and difficulty in obtaining household help.
Several first-time offenders, including Ms. Maria Victoria S. Buzon, Mr. Crisanto C. Carrillo, Jr., Mr. Manolito V. De Guzman, Mr. Roderick I. Duero, Mr. Rodel A. Gombio, Mr. Eduardo M. Iglesias, Atty. Lacandula-Rodriguez, Mr. Ronald C. Napolitano, Ms. Digna C. Palafox, Ms. Sandra O. Pendon, and Mr. Rolando N. Yacat, cited explanations such as chronic health conditions, family illness or responsibilities, traffic and road repairs, overtime work, and temporary disruption of household help.
Some respondents, including Mr. Napolitano, stated they had requested changes in official time or had taken remedial steps such as changing schedules.

Statutory Framework

The applicable standard for habitual tardiness was CSC Memorandum Circular No.