Re: Alibang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mr. Gideon M. Alibang, Building and Ground Maintenance Head B of the Hall of Justice, Davao City, incurred habitual tardiness during the first semester of 2003. Procedural History: The Leave Division of the Supreme Court reported that Alibang committed tardiness 13 times in January 2003 and 11 times in February 2003. The Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer required Alibang to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him. The Petition: Alibang admitted to habitual tardiness and explained that his wife gave birth, their house helper left, forcing him to do household chores for two months, and heavy traffic due to underpass construction prolonged his commute. He asked for consideration and apologized for the belated explanation. The Deputy Clerk of Court recommended a reprimand.
Issue(s)
Whether Gideon M. Alibang incurred habitual tardiness. Whether the reasons provided by Alibang justify his habitual tardiness. Whether a reprimand is the appropriate administrative sanction for habitual tardiness.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the finding and recommendation of the Deputy Clerk of Court. Gideon M. Alibang was reprimanded and warned that repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Gideon M. Alibang incurred habitual tardiness: The records clearly show that Alibang incurred tardiness 13 times in January 2003 and 11 times in February 2003. This frequency meets the definition of habitual tardiness as provided by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, s.1991, which states that an employee is considered habitually tardy if they incur 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. Therefore, Alibang's actions constitute habitual tardiness. On Whether the reasons provided by Alibang justify his habitual tardiness: The Court held that none of the reasons relied upon by respondent Alibang to justify his habitual tardiness merit consideration. The Court has consistently ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores, and traffic problems are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. While these may be considered to mitigate administrative liability in certain cases, they do not absolve the employee from the infraction itself. The nature of public service, especially within the Judiciary, demands a higher standard of conduct and punctuality. On Whether a reprimand is the appropriate administrative sanction for habitual tardiness: Under Section 52 (C) (4), Rule IV (Penalties) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s.1999, habitual tardiness is penalized with a reprimand for the first offense. Given that this is Alibang's first incursion of habitual tardiness, a reprimand is the prescribed penalty. The Court emphasized that habitual tardiness is reprehensible as it seriously impairs efficiency and hampers public service. Employees of the Judiciary are expected to be role models in observing office hours and using every moment for public service, as public office is a public trust. Therefore, the reprimand is a necessary consequence of his infraction.
Main Doctrine
Habitual tardiness by employees of the Judiciary is reprehensible and impairs efficiency and public service, falling short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from those connected with the civil service, especially in the administration of justice. Moral obligations, performance of household chores, and traffic problems are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness, although they may be considered to mitigate administrative liability in certain cases.