[A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC. April 17, 2001]

RE: IMPOSITION OF CORRESPONDING PENALTIES TO EMPLOYEES COMMITTING HABITUAL TARDINESS

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 17 2001.

A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC (Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties to Employees Committing Habitual Tardiness, Supreme Court Employees During the First Semester of 2000.)

For resolution is the Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and dated December 12, 2000 of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, recommending the imposition of corresponding penalties on the employees committing habitual tardiness during the first semester of 2000.

Her recommendation is pursuant to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991 (Policy on Absenteeism and Tardiness), Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service), Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-99 (Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and Employees effective February 1, 1999) and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99 (Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness effective February 1, 1999).

She recommends that this Court should resolve to:

STERNLY WARN the following employees who committed habitual tardiness for the first time:

No. NAME POSITION/OFFICE

1. NEWTON ILAGAN Admin. Asst., Maintenance & Gen. Services, OAS

2. NELSON DIGO Utility Worker II, Judicial Records Office

3. GEMMA C. BADILLO Clerk II, Library Services

4. JOSEPH L.M. MADEJA Clerk II, Second Division

5. ALLEN L. MAGAY Exec. Assistant III, Second Division

6. TERESITA C. OBUSA Judicial Staff Employee II, OCJ/PET

7. JOVITO V. SANCHEZ Computer Programmer II, MISO

8. PONCIANO SANTIAGO, JR. Supervising Typesetter, Print Service

9. HIYASMIN C. BAYUGA Cash Clerk II, Checks Disb. Div.

10. LOLITA T. BUENAVENTURA Clerk II, Secretariat, JBC

11. RONILO A. CASTILLO Utility Worker I (Casual), PET

12. GILBERT A. BERJAMIN Budgeting Asst., Budget Division

13. ELEANOR S. ALAGAD Utility Worker II, FMBO

14. ISIDRO T. AUSTRIA Supply Officer I, PHILJA

Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, defines habitual tardiness as:

“An 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.”

Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 provides the following penalties for habitual tardiness:

First Offense – Reprimand

Second Offense – Suspension for 1 to 30 days;

Third Offense – Dismissal.

Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-99 enjoins all officials and employees of the Judiciary to:

“xxx

“3. Strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.”

Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99 provides:

“xxx. Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as ‘habitual’ or ‘frequent,’ under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely xxx.”

In accordance with the foregoing Circulars, employees who incurred habitual tardiness in the first semester of year 2000 were required to comment or explain why they should not be charged administratively.

The Office of the Administrative Services, after evaluating the comments, made the following findings:

“After a careful review of the records of this case as well as the comments-explanation of the respondents, this Office finds all of them administratively liable for habitual tardiness.

“Respondents’ comment-explanation for their habitual tardiness were all unsatisfactory. Sickness coupled with domestic responsibilities is not an adequate excuse for being late. While this Office certainly laments with the employees’ domestic responsibilities, it is not however acceptable. It would be unfair to the other employees and to the public if we continually allow and/or excuse habitually tardy employees in the name of mercy and compassion. Nor is the traffic problem likewise acceptable. This has been a perennial problem and all we have to do is to adjust our schedules and not simply accept it as part of our daily routine.”

In Belvis vs. Fernandez, ¹ 256 SCRA 455, 459 (1996), citing Sec. 1, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution.this Court rules that:

“There is no question that respondent is prejudicing public service with frequent absences and tardiness. His conduct certainly falls short of the standards prescribed by the Constitution for public officers and employees, to wit: ‘A public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives’.”

Likewise, in Basco vs. Gregorio, ² 245 SCRA 614 (1995).this Court held:

“The exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon court employees and judges are reflective of the premium placed on the image of the court of justice, and that image is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. It thus becomes the imperative and sacred duty of everyone charged with the dispensation of justice, from the judge to the lowliest clerk, to maintain the court’s good name and standing as true temples of justice. Circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, their conduct at all times must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but above all else, must be above suspicion. Indeed every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence. x x x”

The concerned employees here have failed to live up to the standards of conduct set by this Court in the above cases, as shown by their habitual tardiness which prejudiced public service. Indeed, the Memorandum dated December 12, 2000 of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria for the Chief Justice is in order.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to impose on the above named personnel of this Court who incurred habitual tardiness during the first semester of 2000 the recommended penalty of stern warning.”

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court