Re: Calingao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao, Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Piñas City, incurred tardiness 16 times in January 2005 and 10 times in February 2005. Procedural History: The Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Leave Division, Office of the Court Administrator, reported the tardiness. The Court Administrator required Mrs. Calingao to submit her comment. In her comment, Mrs. Calingao admitted the tardiness, apologized, and explained that her tardiness was due to her sacrifices as a working mother with five children, needing to bring her twin children to school before proceeding to the office. She claimed she stays beyond dismissal time to show good faith and dedication. The Court Administrator recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Mrs. Calingao be reprimanded with a warning. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao is guilty of habitual tardiness. Whether Mrs. Calingao's explanation for her tardiness is sufficient to justify the infraction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao administratively liable for habitual tardiness. She was reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Mrs. Natividad M. Calingao is guilty of habitual tardiness: Indubitably, Mrs. Calingao is guilty of habitual tardiness as defined by Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which states that an employee is habitually tardy if they incur tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year. The records clearly indicate that Mrs. Calingao incurred tardiness 16 times in January and 10 times in February 2005, satisfying the criteria for habitual tardiness. On Whether Mrs. Calingao's explanation for her tardiness is sufficient to justify the infraction: Mrs. Calingao's explanation that she brings her children to school before proceeding to the office does not merit consideration to justify her habitual tardiness. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. Such infractions seriously impair efficiency and hamper public service. By being habitually tardy, respondent fell short of the standard of conduct demanded of everyone connected with the civil service, especially the administration of justice. 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, which includes the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service.
Main Doctrine
Habitual tardiness by employees of the Judiciary impairs efficiency and hampers public service, falling short of the standard of conduct demanded of those connected with the civil service, especially the administration of justice. Court officials and employees are role models in observing official time, as punctuality is a virtue and absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.