Case Summary (A.M. No. 2002-15-SC)
Recommended Action and Legal Basis
The Deputy Clerk recommended administrative penalties for the habitual tardiness of the mentioned employees, referencing the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, which outlines the policy on absenteeism and tardiness, and Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, which details the revised uniform rules on administrative cases.
Facts of the Case
The Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services compiled a list of the employees who incurred habitual tardiness. Each employee received a Memorandum directing them to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken. Tardiness was reported for various months and instances, with employees citing personal circumstances such as caring for elderly or sick family members and parenting duties as contributing factors to their tardiness.
Employees' Explanations
Each employee provided explanations for their tardiness incidents:
- De Leon cited her obligation to care for her elderly mother.
- Belando discussed her struggles as a single parent of five children.
- Medina indicated he could not leave his sick mother unattended until his sister arrived.
- Quinto highlighted her responsibility for a child requiring therapy.
- Guerrero mentioned complications due to her pregnancy and related health issues.
Administrative Recommendations
In the memorandum prepared, the Deputy Clerk proposed specific penalties based on the severity and frequency of tardiness:
- De Leon was recommended to be suspended for two months without pay due to repeat offenses.
- Belando and Medina were suggested to receive severe reprimands, marking their second offenses.
- Quinto and Guerrero were recommended to receive stern warnings as first-time offenders.
Court's Ruling on Tardiness
The Court defined habitual tardiness per CSC Circular No. 4, which qualifies an employee as habitually tardy if they are tardy ten times a month for at least two months in a semester. The Court recognized the justification of personal circumstances; however, it emphasized that such reasons do not absolve employees of accountability for tardiness, which undermines the standards of public service.
Conclusion and Penalties Imposed
The Court adopted the recommendations of the Deputy C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 2002-15-SC)
Background of the Case
- The case involves the resolution of administrative penalties for employees of the Supreme Court who exhibited habitual tardiness during the first semester of 2002.
- The memorandum recommending penalties was submitted by Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer.
- The recommendation was based on Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, and Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, which govern absenteeism and tardiness in the civil service.
List of Affected Employees
- The following employees were identified for habitual tardiness:
- Ms. Lutgarda E. De Leon from the Office of the Court En Banc
- Ms. Susan L. Belando from the Office of the Court Administrator
- Mr. Almario Medina from the Library Services
- Ms. Lolita Quinto from the Judicial and Bar Council
- Atty. Perpetua Socorro Jocelyn Guerrero from the Office of the Court Administrator
Individual Explanations for Tardiness
Lutgarda E. De Leon:
- Tardy 10 times in March and 11 times in May.
- Cited her responsibilities caring for her 92-year-old blind mother as a mitigating factor.
Susan L. Belando:
- Recorded tardiness of 10 times in February, 14 in April, 20 in May, and 12 in June.
- A single parent struggling to manage her household and five children, including a toddler.
Almario Medina:
- Tardy 11 times each in February and March, and 10 times in April.
- Cited the need to wait for his sister to care for their elderly mother before he could leave for work.
Lolita Quinto:
- Tardy