ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
|
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
RE:
HABITUAL
TARDINESS OF GUENDOLYN C. SISON,
A.M.
No.
P-04-1860
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is an administrative matter involving the habitual tardiness of Guendolyn C. Sison, Clerk III in Branch 23, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. In a certification dated March 15, 2004,[1] issued by Hermogena F. Bayani, Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Guendolyn C. Sison incurred tardiness on the following dates:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In response to the Memorandum dated March 12, 2003[2] of OCA, Sison submitted a letter-explanation dated April 9, 2003[3] stating that: she is stationed about twenty kilometers from her home which necessitates her to travel the said distance by taxi to possibly reach the office on time; considering the fraction of time lost due to tardiness, she maintained the attitude of maximizing her working hours by omitting breaktime to ensure that the task assigned to her for the day is finished which she does even on days when she reported to work early; she believes that by seriously attending to her assigned task and working beyond office hours, the lost time has already been compensated for.chanrobles virtual law library The OCA posits that Sison’s explanation does not merit consideration to justify her habitual tardiness. Thus, the OCA recommends that Sison be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.[4]chanrobles virtual law library We approve the OCA’s findings but not as to the recommended penalty.cralaw:red We have consistently held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.[5] Considering that her explanation is not acceptable, Sison indeed is guilty of habitual tardiness.chanrobles virtual law library Sison fell short of the exacting standards for public office which cannot be countenanced. Court officials and employees must strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[6] By reason of the nature and functions of their office, the 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.[7] Sison cannot be allowed to make her own personal schedule, depending on her own needs.cralaw:red Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 provides that:chanrobles virtual law library
Although this is the first time that Sison is formally charged of habitual tardiness, records show that she is guilty of habitual tardiness twice in two years time. In 2002, Sison had been tardy more than ten times for the second semester in each of the two consecutive months of September and October as well as in each of the months of November and December; while in the first semester of 2003, she had been tardy more than ten times for the month of March and ten times in April. Thus, for having committed two counts of habitual tardiness as contemplated by Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Sison should be meted out a stiffer penalty than a mere reprimand.chanrobles virtual law library Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 on the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
It appearing that Sison
has committed two counts of habitual tardiness the penalty is
suspension.
Considering that she has been in the government service since 1997[8]
and there is no showing that she has been previously charged
administratively,
twenty days suspension is appropriate.
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.
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2004 SC Decisions - Back to Home |
|
|
