Case Summary (A.M. No. 04-6-298-RTC)
Tardiness Record
The certification dated March 15, 2004, indicated that Pe incurred multiple instances of tardiness throughout various months, including May (17 times), June (11 times), July (13 times), August (20 times), September (20 times) of 2002, followed by January (19 times), February (17 times), and March (20 times) of 2003. Notably, this recurring tardiness prompted the Deputy Court Administrator, Zenaida N. ElepaAo, to initiate an inquiry into Pe's behavior, instructing the Executive Judge, Galiciano C. Arriesgado, to require Pe to provide an explanation within 72 hours.
Explanation for Tardiness
In her response dated April 8, 2003, Pe attributed her tardiness to her pregnancy, highlighting that her condition caused physiological and biological changes that affected her punctuality. She requested leniency based on her delicate condition, indicating that she had not been prone to tardiness before becoming pregnant.
Findings and Recommendations by the Office of the Court Administrator
In a memorandum dated June 1, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a reprimand for Pe for her habitual tardiness during the specified months. The OCA emphasized that a health condition does not constitute a valid justification for habitual tardiness, citing previous decisions that dismissed similar defenses.
Court's Conclusion
The Court concurred with the OCA’s findings but deemed the reprimand insufficient given the circumstances. It noted that after her pregnancy, Pe continued to exhibit tardiness during 2003, indicating that her repeated lateness could not be solely attributed to her condition. The Court acknowledged the challenges of pregnancy but reiterated the obligation of public servants to adhere to rules regarding punctuality.
Importance of Punctuality
The Court underscored the critical nature of punctuality in public service, emphasizing that court officials and employees serve as role models in adhering to prescribed office hours. It reiterated that habitual tardiness undermines the integrity and trust inherent in public office.
Administrative Offense and Penalties
Pe's conduct was characterized as falling short of the expected standards for public servants. Although this was her first formal charge for tardiness, her history indicated a pattern of habitual misconduct. The provisions of Civil Service Memorandum Circ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 04-6-298-RTC)
Background of the Case
- This administrative matter involves Rosemarie B. Pe, who served as Statistician II at the Regional Trial Court's Office of the Clerk of Court in Cebu City.
- The issue at hand is Pe's habitual tardiness, documented through a certification dated March 15, 2004, issued by Hermogena F. Bayani, Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
- The certification details Pe's tardiness over several months in 2002 and 2003, indicating a pattern of habitual lateness.
Documented Instances of Tardiness
- In 2002, Pe's instances of tardiness were recorded as follows:
- May: 17 times
- June: 11 times
- July: 13 times
- August: 20 times
- September: 20 times
- In 2003, her tardiness continued:
- January: 19 times
- February: 17 times
- March: 20 times
- These records demonstrate a consistent failure to adhere to official working hours.
Administrative Proceedings Initiated
- Following a letter from Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. ElepaAo, Judge Galiciano C. Arriesgado directed Pe to provide a written explanation for her tardiness within 72 hours.
- In Pe's response dated April 8, 2003, she attributed her tardiness to her pregnancy, asserting that her condition caused physiological changes affecting her punctuality.