SECOND DIVISION
RE:
HABITUAL
TARDINESS OF JULIE M. MAYCACAYAN,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 165, PASIG CITY.
A.M.
No.
P-04-1847
(formerly A.M. No.
04-5-286-RTC)
August 27, 2004
R E S O L U
T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is an administrative
matter which concerns the habitual tardiness of Julie M. Maycacayan,
Clerk
III, Branch 165, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.cralaw:red
The certification[1]
dated March 23, 2004 issued by Hermogena F. Bayani, Chief Judicial
Staff
Officer, Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court
Administrator
(OCA) shows that Julie M. Maycacayan incurred tardiness as follows:
August
2003
10 timeschanrobles virtual law library
September
2003
16 timeschanrobles virtual law library
In compliance with the
letter-memorandum[2]
dated February 18, 2004 of the OCA, Maycacayan submitted her
letter-explanation[3]
dated March 12, 2004 extending her apology with an assurance that
henceforth,
she will report to office regularly and on time. Maycacayan
explains
that: during the months of August and September, 2003, she did not have
any household help and had to do household chores including bringing
her
children to school in the morning before proceeding to the office; she
lives in Binangonan, Rizal and works at Pasig City and the traffic
problem
in the area worsens everyday; she tried looking for a vacant item for
Clerk
III in RTC, Binangonan, Rizal but unfortunately, she could not find
one;
and to compensate for her tardiness, there are times when she goes to
the
office on Saturdays to type the subpoenae.chanrobles virtual law library
The OCA finds that Maycacayan’s
explanation does not merit consideration to justify her habitual
tardiness
and recommends that she be reprimanded with a warning that repetition
of
the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more
severe
penalty.cralaw:red
We approve the OCA’s
findings and recommendation.cralaw:red
Civil Service Memorandum
Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 describes habitual tardiness as follows:
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.chanrobles virtual law library
In 2003, Maycacayan
had been late more than ten times for the consecutive months of August
and September. The explanation submitted by Maycacayan that her
tardiness
is mainly due to her household chores and heavy traffic is not
tenable.
Moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems
and
health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to
excuse
habitual tardiness.[4]
Clearly, she is guilty of habitual tardiness.cralaw:red
Maycacayan fell short
of the exacting standards for public office which cannot be
condoned.
In inspiring public respect for the justice system, court officials and
employees must strictly observe official time. As punctuality is
a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[5]
By reason of the nature and functions of their office, the officials
and
employees 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.[6]chanrobles virtual law library
Section 52(c)(4), Rule
VI of Civil Service Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 on the Revised
Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides:
C. The
following
are Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:
4.
Frequent
unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)chanrobles virtual law library
1st
Offense
- Reprimandchanrobles virtual law library
2nd Offense -
Suspension
1-30 dayschanrobles virtual law library
3rd Offense -
Dismissal
It appearing that this
is Maycacayan’s first offense, the penalty of reprimand is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Julie M.
Maycacayan, is found guilty of Habitual Tardiness and is hereby
REPRIMANDED
with a stern of warning that a repetition of the same or similar
offense
will be dealt with more severely. Let copy of herein Resolution
be
attached to her 201 files.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Austria-Martinez, J.,
(Acting Chairman),
Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman), on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Rollo, p. 8.
[3]
Rollo, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness
Committed During the Second Semester of 2002, 409 SCRA 9 (2003).
[5]
Administrative Circular No. 1-99. Enhancing the Dignity of the
Courts
as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their
Officials
and Employees.
[6]
Administrative Circular No. 2-99. Strict Observance of Working
Hours
and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness. |