SECOND DIVISION
RE:
HABITUAL
TARDINESS OF MS. ELMIDA E. VARGAS,
COURT STENOGRAPHER
III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF CEBU CITY, BRANCH 23
A.M.
No.
P-04-1862
(Formerly A.M.
OCA
IPI No. 04-6-330-RTC)
August 12, 2004
R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This administrative
matter relates to the habitual tardiness of Ms. Elmida E. Vargas, Court
Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 23.cralaw:red
The certification dated
March 15, 2004 issued by Hermogena F. Bayani, SC Chief Judicial Staff
Officer,
Leave Division, Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the
Court
Administrator (OCA), shows that Ms. Vargas incurred the following
tardiness:
September
2002
13 timeschanrobles virtual law library
October
2002
10 timeschanrobles virtual law library
December
2002
14 timeschanrobles virtual law library
January
2003
17 times
February
2003
12 times
March
2003
14 times
In her Letter dated
April
11, 2003, Ms. Vargas explains that the reason for her tardiness is her
being asthmatic. She further explains that her asthma attacks
usually
occur late in the afternoon and midnight to early dawn. She has
to
take medications that weaken her body, making it hard for her to get
out
of bed and prepare for work early in the morning.[1]
Nonetheless, she admits that her ailment does not entirely affect her
work
at the office.
For its part, the OCA
opines that the respondent’s explanation does not merit consideration
to
justify her habitual tardiness. It, therefore, recommends that
the
case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, and that Ms.
Vargas
be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same will warrant
the
imposition of a more severe penalty.[2]chanrobles virtual law library
We agree.chanrobles virtual law library
There is no doubt that
respondent is guilty of habitual tardiness. 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
The Court has previously
held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic
problems
and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons
to excuse habitual tardiness.[3]
As such, the OCA was correct in finding Ms. Vargas’s explanation
unworthy
of credence.cralaw:red
By being habitually
tardy, the respondent fell short of the stringent standard of conduct
demanded
from everyone connected with the administration of justice.[4]
Indeed, courts are temples of justice, and 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]
The respondent shall
thus be reprimanded for habitual tardiness, in accordance with Sec.
52(C)(4),
Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 on the
Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which
provides
the corresponding penalties for violation of habitual tardiness:
First
Offense
- Reprimandchanrobles virtual law library
Second
Offense
-
Suspension
for 1-30 days
Third
Offense
- Dismissal
from the service
WHEREFORE, Ms. Elmida
E. Vargas is hereby REPRIMANDED for her habitual tardiness, and WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the
imposition
of a more severe penalty.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, J., Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
The respondent submitted a certification from Dr. Aguido A. Magdadaro
of
the Cebu Kidney Specialty Center who attested to her condition.
[2]
Report dated June 10, 2004, p. 2.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness
Committed
During the Second Semester of 2002, 409 SCRA 9 (2003).
[4]
Id. at 15.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Administrative Circular No. 1-99 entitled “Enhancing the Dignity of
Courts
as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and
Employees,”
which took effect on January 15, 1999. |