Case Summary (A.M. No. 2003-11-SC)
Report of Tardiness
On April 14, 2003, the Leave Division of the Court submitted a Report of Tardiness indicating that Alibang had committed tardiness 13 times in January 2003 and 11 times in February 2003. Following this report, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, required Alibang to provide a written explanation within five days as to why no disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Explanation and Context Provided by Alibang
In his response dated January 14, 2004, Alibang admitted to his habitual tardiness and explained mitigating circumstances. He highlighted that his wife had given birth to their third child on December 10, 2002, and that their house helper had left them, requiring him to undertake all household chores. Additionally, he cited heavy traffic due to the construction of the Buhangin underpass as a significant factor contributing to his lateness.
Recommendations by the Administrative Officer
Atty. Candelaria, considering the circumstances, recommended that Alibang receive a reprimand for this infraction, being his first incidence of habitual tardiness. Alibang was also reminded to adhere to directives from the Office regarding attendance.
Legal Basis for Sanction
The finding of habitual tardiness was supported by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, which defines an employee as habitually tardy if they are late ten or more times in a month for at least two months in a semester. Furthermore, under Section 52 (C) (4) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, the penalties for habitual tardiness are established: a reprimand for the first offense, suspension for the second, and dismissal for the third.
Findings on Tardiness
The records confirmed Alibang's tardiness with 13 instances in January and 11 in February, constituting habitual tardiness in line with the Civil Service rules. The reasons provided by Alibang were deemed insufficient to warrant exemption from disciplinary measures. The court has consistently held that personal issues such as family obligations or traffic delays do not justify habitual tardiness.
Importance of Punctuality in Public Service
The ruling asserts that habitual tardiness undermines the efficiency of public service, particularly within the Judiciary, where officials and employees are expected to exemplify punctuality and adherence to prescribed office hou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 2003-11-SC)
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around Mr. Gideon M. Alibang, who held the position of Building and Ground Maintenance Head B at the Hall of Justice in Davao City.
- The issue at hand is Mr. Alibang's habitual tardiness during the first semester of 2003, which prompted administrative scrutiny.
- A memorandum dated March 30, 2004, from Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, recommended administrative sanctions against Alibang.
Report of Tardiness
- On April 14, 2003, the Leave Division reported that Mr. Alibang was tardy 13 times in January and 11 times in February 2003.
- Following this report, Atty. Candelaria requested Mr. Alibang to provide a written explanation within five days to justify why disciplinary action should not be enforced.
Explanation by Mr. Alibang
- In his written comment dated January 14, 2004, Mr. Alibang acknowledged his habitual tardiness.
- He attributed his tardiness to personal circumstances, including the birth of his third child on December 10, 2002, and the departure of their house helper, which resulted in him having to manage household chores.
- Additionally, he cited heavy traffic due to construction work on the Buhangin underpass as a contributing factor to his delays.
- Mr. Alib