SECOND DIVISION
HABITUAL
TARDINESS
OF ARTHUR R. CABIGON,
SHERIFF IV, RTC-OCC, CEBU CITY.chanrobles virtual law library
A.M.
No.
04-5-277-RTC
August 31, 2004
R E S O L U T I O
N
TINGA,
J.:
On March 15, 2004,
Hermogena F. Bayani, Supreme Court Judicial Staff Officer, Leave
Division,
Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court
Administrator,
issued a certification[1]
that Arthur R. Cabigon (Cabigon), Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court,
Office
of the Clerk of Court, Cebu City incurred tardiness, as follows:
May
2002
- 12
times
June
2002
- 10
times
November
2002
- 10 times
January
2003
- 12
times
March
2003
- 10
times
On March 12, 2003,
Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño required
Hon.
Galicano C. Arriesgado, Executive Judge to direct Cabigon to
explain
within seventy-two (72) hours why he should not be reprimanded for
violating
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which
provides
that:
“Any employee shall
be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of
the
number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months
in
a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.”
On April 14, 2003, Cabigon
submitted a letter[2]
dated April 12, 2003, explaining his side. He claims that the reason he
was often late was his lack of household help, thereby compelling him
to
do the household daily chores himself. Further, he professes lack
of awareness of the above-cited Memorandum Circular.cralaw:red
On May 18, 2004, the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its Report and
Recommendation.[3]
The OCA concludes that based on the records Cabigon has indeed violated
the Memorandum Circular involved but recommends admonition and warning
only, instead of suspension for one (1) day to thirty (30) days.[4]
The OCA notes that Cabigon has never been penalized for habitual
tardiness,
adding that his lack of knowledge of the rules on tardiness is
mitigating.cralaw:red
The Court approves the
findings of the OCA but not its recommended penalty.cralaw:red
By reason of the nature
and functions of their office, officials and employees of the Judiciary
must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional
canon
that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the
observance
of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment
thereof
for public service, if only to recompense the government, and
ultimately,
the people, who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. Thus,
to
inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials
and
employees are at all
times
behooved to strictly observe official time. As
punctuality
is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[5]
Thus, moral obligations
and mundane considerations such as performance of household chores,
traffic
problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient
reasons to excuse habitual tardiness, although these may be considered
to mitigate administrative liability.[6]
The Court has emphatically
stated that by being habitual tardy, employees fail to live up to the
prescribed
standard of conduct. Tardiness causes inefficiency and is prejudicial
to
public service.[7]
The claim of Cabigon
that he is not aware of the rules regarding habitual tardiness is both
untenable and aggravating. Employees in the Judiciary do not have
to be formally advised about tardiness and absenteeism being anathema
to
efficiency in the service. It is their bounden duty to
report
for work every working day and not to be late any minute later.cralaw:red
More importantly, this
is not the first offense of the respondent but his second, although
this
is the first time he was charged. He was habitually tardy in the first
semesters of years 2002 and 2003, more specifically, May 2002, June
2002,
January 2003 and March 2003. For the said reason, the
recommendation
of OCA is inappropriate. The fact that this is the respondent’s first
time
to be penalized for being tardy is not an excuse to disregard the
imposable
penalty.cralaw:red
As it appears that Cabigon
has committed two counts of habitual tardiness, the penalty is
suspension.
However, since it does not appear that he has been previously charged
administratively,
then suspension of twenty (20) days will suffice.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, Arthur R.
Cabigon, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of
Court,
Cebu City is found GUILTY of two counts of HABITUAL TARDINESS. He is
SUSPENDED
for twenty (20) days with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Let copy of this
Resolution
be attached to his 201 files.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Austria-Martinez, J.,
(Acting Chairman),
Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Id. at 5.
[3]
Id. at 1-2.
[4]
Section 52 (c) (4), Rule VI of Civil Service Circular No. 19, s. 1999
on
the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
C.
The following are Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4.
Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)
1st
offense-Reprimand
2nd
offense- Suspension for 1 day to 30 days
3rd
offense- Dismissal
[5]Re:
Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed
During the Second Semester of 2002, A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC, August 14,
2003,
409 SCRA 9.
[6]Ibid.
[7]Ibid. |