Re: Cabigon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Arthur R. Cabigon, Sheriff IV, RTC-OCC, Cebu City, incurred tardiness on multiple occasions: May 2002 (12 times), June 2002 (10 times), November 2002 (10 times), January 2003 (12 times), and March 2003 (10 times). Procedural History: The Deputy Court Administrator required Cabigon to explain why he should not be reprimanded for violating Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which defines habitual tardiness as incurring tardiness ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year. Cabigon explained that his tardiness was due to household chores and professed lack of awareness of the Memorandum Circular. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that Cabigon had violated the circular but recommended only admonition and warning, noting his lack of prior penalties and his explanation as mitigating factors. The Petition: The Court reviewed the OCA's report and recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether Arthur R. Cabigon is guilty of habitual tardiness. Whether the recommended penalty of admonition and warning by the OCA is appropriate.
Ruling
Arthur R. Cabigon is found GUILTY of two counts of HABITUAL TARDINESS. He is SUSPENDED for twenty (20) days with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. The recommendation of the OCA for admonition and warning is not approved.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Arthur R. Cabigon is guilty of habitual tardiness: The certification from the Supreme Court Judicial Staff Officer clearly shows that Cabigon incurred tardiness ten (10) times in May 2002, ten (10) times in June 2002, ten (10) times in November 2002, twelve (12) times in January 2003, and ten (10) times in March 2003. These instances satisfy the definition of habitual tardiness under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which requires ten (10) instances of tardiness a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year. The Court noted that Cabigon was habitually tardy in the first semesters of 2002 and 2003, specifically in May 2002, June 2002, January 2003, and March 2003, constituting two counts of habitual tardiness. On whether the recommended penalty of admonition and warning by the OCA is appropriate: The Court found the OCA's recommendation inappropriate. By reason of the nature and functions of their office, 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. Punctuality is a virtue, and absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. Moral obligations and mundane considerations such as performance of household chores, traffic problems, and health, domestic, and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness, although these may be considered to mitigate administrative liability. The Court emphasized that by being habitually tardy, employees fail to live up to the prescribed standard of conduct, and tardiness causes inefficiency and is prejudicial to public service. Furthermore, the claim of Cabigon that he was unaware of the rules regarding habitual tardiness was deemed both untenable and aggravating, as employees in the Judiciary are expected to know that tardiness and absenteeism are anathema to efficiency. The Court also noted that while this was the first time Cabigon was charged, his habitual tardiness occurred in multiple instances across different months, indicating a pattern of behavior that warranted a more severe penalty than mere admonition. Given that Cabigon had committed two counts of habitual tardiness and it did not appear that he had been previously charged administratively, a suspension of twenty (20) days was deemed sufficient.
Main Doctrine
Habitual tardiness by employees of the Judiciary is a violation of the mandate to be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Moral obligations and mundane considerations are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness, although they may be considered to mitigate administrative liability. Ignorance of the rules on tardiness is not an excuse and may be considered aggravating.