EN BANC
RE:
HABITUAL
TARDINESS OF MARIO J. TAMANG,
SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 168,
PASIG CITY
A.M.
No. P-04-1861
(formerly A.M.
No.
04-6-327-RTC)
August 31, 2004
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
This administrative matter
concerns the habitual tardiness of Mario J. Tamang, Sheriff IV in
Branch
168, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
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 Mario J. Tamang incurred tardiness as follows:
January
2003
14 times
February
2003
14 times
March
2003
10 times
June
2003
14 times
July
2003
15 timeschanrobles virtual law library
August
2003
13 timeschanrobles virtual law library
September
2003
18 timeschanrobles virtual law library
In compliance with the
Letter-Memorandum[2]
dated February 18, 2004 of OCA, Tamang submitted his letter-explanation
dated March 10, 2004[3]
extending his sincerest apology for having incurred series of tardiness
in reporting for work in several occasions in the year 2003.
Tamang
explains that: sometime in January, 2003, he started to experience an
extraordinary
burning sensation in his right forearm; such pain was recurring and
could
be felt in the morning; as soon as the pain subsides, he would
hurriedly
report for work however late it was; the feeling went on for months
until
the rashes became wounds and that it was only in the last quarter of
2003
that he finally sought medical treatment and found out that the rashes
were skin rabies which developed into minor skin asthma; not all the
reported
tardiness were due to health reasons but
by reason of official business like
service of summons, writs of execution and other processes of the
court; if he could not report first in the office, he always made it a
point to inform either the court’s Utility Aide or even the
Branch
Clerk of Court by phone or by texting through their cellular phones to
inform them of his whereabouts and after completing his official
business
he would return to the office no matter how late it was to log in and
log
out; he has been in the government service for twenty years and for
this
length of time, has never been administratively charged; he is just an
ordinary employee trying his best to earn a living the honest way for
his
family and that human frailties and weaknesses sometime get in the way
that hamper his willingness to cope; and he would stay overtime to
finish
whatever is to be done to complete his work in order to compensate for
being late.cralaw:red
The OCA finds that Tamang’s
explanation does not merit consideration to justify his habitual
tardiness
and recommends that he be reprimanded with a warning that repetition of
the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more
severe
penalty.chanrobles virtual law library
We approve the findings
of the OCA but not as to the recommended penalty.cralaw:red
The explanation offered
by Tamang that his tardiness is mainly due to his skin asthma cannot be
given credence. Moral obligations, performance of household
chores,
traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not
sufficient
reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.[4]
Indubitably, he is guilty of habitual tardiness.cralaw:red
As courts are temples
of justice, their dignity and sanctity must at all times be preserved
and
enhanced. 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
Civil Service Memorandum
Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 described 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
Although, this is the
first
time that Tamang is formally charged of habitual tardiness, records
reveal
that he incurred habitual tardiness for the two semesters of the year
2003.
In the first semester of 2003, he had been late ten times
or
more for each of the three consecutive
months
of January, February and March. In the second
semester
of the same year, Tamang incurred tardiness more than ten times for the
consecutive months of July, August and September. Thus, for
having
committed two counts of habitual tardiness, Tamang should be meted a
penalty
stiffer than a mere reprimand.
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
Tamang
has committed two counts of habitual tardiness, the penalty is
suspension.
Considering that he has been in the government service for almost
twenty
years and it appearing that he had not been previously charged
administratively,
fifteen days suspension is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Mario J.
Tamang, Sheriff IV of Branch 168, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City is
found
GUILTY of HABITUAL TARDINESS. He is SUSPENDED for fifteen (15)
days
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will
be dealt with more severely. Let copy of herein Resolution be
attached
to his 201 files.chanrobles virtual law library
In the future, the Office
of the Court Administrator is advised to file administrative charges
against
a court employee as soon as habitual tardiness, as defined in Civil
Service
Memorandum Circular No. 23, is incurred by the employee.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J., Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Corona, Callejo,
Sr.,Tinga
and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., on official leave.
Panganiban, J., on official
leave.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
J., on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Rollo, p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Rollo, pp. 6-8.
[4]
Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness
Committed During the Second Semester of 2002, 409 SCRA 9 (2003).
chan
[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.chanrobles virtual law library |