SECOND DIVISION
RE:
HABITUAL
TARDINESS OF MR. THEODORE G. JAYMALIN,
CLERK III,
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF COURT, MANILA
A.M.
No.
P-04-1863
(Formerly A.M. OCA
IPI No. 04-6-161-MeTC)
August 12, 2004
R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On March 16, 2004, Hermogena
F. Bayani, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Leave Division, Office of
the
Court Administrator (OCA), issued a Certification that Mr. Theodore G.
Jaymalin, Clerk III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of
Court,
Manila, incurred tardiness on the following dates:
2002chanrobles virtual law library
July
- 18 timeschanrobles virtual law library
August
- 21 timeschanrobles virtual law library
September
-
19 timeschanrobles virtual law library
October
-
18 timeschanrobles virtual law library
December
-
11 timeschanrobles virtual law library
2003chanrobles virtual law library
January
-
16 timeschanrobles virtual law library
February
-
13 timeschanrobles virtual law library
In a Letter dated March
4, 2003, the respondent candidly expressed regret for having incurred
such
tardiness and reasoned that the same was primarily due to financial
difficulties.
He explained that, as the breadwinner of the family, “insurmountable
problems”
due to his debts caused him sleepless nights, and lack of appetite and
vitality, prompting him to resort to taking anti-depressants as
medication
to experience momentary relief therefrom. He then consulted a
psychiatrist
to relieve him from repressed emotions and anxieties.cralaw:red
In a Letter addressed
to the Court Administrator dated March 12, 2003, Executive Judge
Alejandro
G. Bijasa, MTC, Manila, declared as unmeritorious the respondent’s
explanation,
and opined that if the latter could not live by his present salary, he
should seek a more financially rewarding employment. Judge Bijasa
recommended
that Mr. Jaymalin be reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of
tardiness
will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
For its part, the OCA
made the following observations in its Report dated June 10, 2004:
From the forgoing, it
appears that Mr. Jaymalin had indeed violated the rule on tardiness.
The
explanation of Mr. Jaymalin does not merit consideration to justify his
habitual tardiness. As held by the Court in A.M. No. 00-06-09-SC, moral
obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health
conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons
to excuse habitual tardiness.[1]
The OCA thereupon recommended
that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, and
that
the respondent be reprimanded for habitual tardiness.cralaw:red
We agree with the foregoing
recommendation.chanrobles virtual law library
Under Civil Service
Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, “[a]ny 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.” This Court
cannot
countenance habitual tardiness as it seriously imperils efficiency and
encumbers public service. An employee who is frequently late falls
short
of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected
with
the administration of justice. Inherent in this mandate is the strict
observance
of prescribed office hours and the competent use of every moment
thereof
for public service, if only to expiate the Government, and ultimately,
the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary.[2]
It is unequivocal that
respondent is guilty of habitual tardiness. His explanation and apology
failed to justify the incurred tardiness and exemption from the
imposition
of the penalties provided in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of
1995.[3]chanrobles virtual law library
The Court is constrained
to reiterate the oft-repeated rule that by reason of the nature and
functions
of their office, officials and employees of the Judiciary must be ideal
exemplars in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that
public
office is a public trust.[4]
WHEREFORE, Mr. Theodore
G. Jaymalin is hereby REPRIMANDED for his habitual tardiness and is
STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt
with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Report, p. 2.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
In Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties For Habitual Tardiness
Committed
During the Second Semester of 2002, 409 SCRA 9 (2003).
[3]
The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Section 52(C)(4), Rule VI thereof provides the penalties for habitual
tardiness,
to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
First
Offense
- Reprimandchanrobles virtual law library
Second
Offense -
Suspension
for 1-30 days
Third
Offense
-
Dismissal from the service
[4]
See Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution. | 
