Re: Tamang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative matter concerns the habitual tardiness of Mario J. Tamang, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig City. A certification showed Tamang incurred tardiness 14 times in January 2003, 14 times in February 2003, 10 times in March 2003, 14 times in June 2003, 15 times in July 2003, 13 times in August 2003, and 18 times in September 2003. Procedural History: Tamang submitted a letter-explanation citing recurring burning sensation in his right forearm starting January 2003, which he later learned was skin rabies that developed into minor skin asthma. He also stated some tardiness was due to official business, that he always informed his office of his whereabouts, and that he had 20 years of government service without prior administrative charges. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found his explanation insufficient and recommended a reprimand with a warning. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the OCA.
Issue(s)
Whether Mario J. Tamang is guilty of habitual tardiness. Whether the explanation offered by Tamang is sufficient to justify his habitual tardiness. What is the appropriate penalty for habitual tardiness under the circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Mario J. Tamang guilty of habitual tardiness and suspended him for fifteen (15) days with a stern warning. The Court advised the Office of the Court Administrator to file administrative charges as soon as habitual tardiness is incurred.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Mario J. Tamang is guilty of habitual tardiness: The Court affirmed that Tamang is guilty of habitual tardiness. Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, defines habitual tardiness as incurring 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. The records showed Tamang incurred tardiness ten times or more for each of the three consecutive months in the first semester of 2003 (January, February, March) and for three consecutive months in the second semester of 2003 (July, August, September). This clearly meets the definition of habitual tardiness for two counts within the year. On whether the explanation offered by Tamang is sufficient to justify his habitual tardiness: The Court held that Tamang's explanation does not merit consideration to justify his habitual tardiness. The Court reiterated that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, and health, domestic, and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. While Tamang cited health reasons and official business, the Court found these explanations insufficient to absolve him from the offense, especially given the frequency and pattern of his tardiness. The Court emphasized that courts are temples of justice and their officials and employees must be role models in observing official time. On the appropriate penalty for habitual tardiness under the circumstances: The Court found that Tamang committed two counts of habitual tardiness, which warrants a penalty stiffer than a mere reprimand. Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of Civil Service Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, provides that the second offense for habitual tardiness is suspension for 1-30 days. Considering Tamang's almost twenty years in government service and the absence of prior administrative charges, the Court deemed a fifteen-day suspension to be appropriate. The Court also issued a stern warning that repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.
Main Doctrine
Habitual tardiness is an offense punishable by suspension, and explanations involving personal concerns such as health, traffic, or domestic issues are generally not sufficient to justify such infractions. Court officials and employees must be role models in observing official time due to the nature of public office as a public trust.