Re: Sayam
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Zenaida N. Elepaño issued a memorandum to Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr., informing him that Ms. Adelaida E. Sayam, Clerk III of RTC, Branch 5, Cebu City, incurred tardiness in October and November 2002, violating Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998. Ms. Sayam was ordered to explain. Procedural History: A certification confirmed Ms. Sayam's tardiness not only in October and November 2002 but also in January and February 2003, with specific counts for each month. Ms. Sayam explained that she has two small children, lives in Minglanilla with heavy morning traffic, and requested time to discipline herself. DCA Elepaño referred the matter to the OCA Legal Office. Atty. Wilhelmina D. Geronga submitted a Report and Recommendation, stating that Ms. Sayam's explanation did not merit consideration and that habitual tardiness violates the standard of conduct for the Judiciary. The recommendation was to re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter and reprimand Ms. Sayam with a warning. The Court issued a Resolution requiring respondent to manifest if she was submitting the case for decision. Ms. Sayam filed a manifestation submitting the case for resolution. The Petition: The case originated from a memorandum regarding Ms. Sayam's habitual tardiness.
Issue(s)
Whether Ms. Adelaida E. Sayam incurred habitual tardiness. Whether Ms. Sayam's explanation sufficiently justifies her habitual tardiness. Whether Ms. Sayam is administratively liable for habitual tardiness and what penalty should be imposed.
Ruling
The Court found Ms. Adelaida E. Sayam administratively liable for habitual tardiness. She was reprimanded and warned that a repetition of a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Ms. Adelaida E. Sayam incurred habitual tardiness: The Court affirmed that Ms. Sayam incurred habitual tardiness. The certification from the SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Office of the Court Administrator confirmed her tardiness for multiple months: October 2002 (10 times), November 2002 (13 times), January 2003 (16 times), and February 2003 (11 times). Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1998, an officer or employee is considered habitually tardy if they incur 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. Ms. Sayam's record clearly meets this definition, demonstrating a pattern of tardiness over several months. On whether Ms. Sayam's explanation sufficiently justifies her habitual tardiness: The Court held that Ms. Sayam's explanation did not merit consideration to justify her habitual tardiness. Her reasons, including having two small children, living in Minglanilla with heavy morning traffic, and her promise to try her best to wake up early, were deemed insufficient. The Court reiterated the pronouncement in A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. By being habitually tardy, employees fall short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. On whether Ms. Sayam is administratively liable for habitual tardiness and what penalty should be imposed: The Court found Ms. Sayam administratively liable for habitual tardiness. The Constitution provides that public office is a public trust, requiring public officials and employees to faithfully observe prescribed office hours and efficiently use every moment for public service. Punctuality is a virtue, and absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. The Court applied Section 52(C)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, which penalizes habitual tardiness. For a first offense, the penalty is a reprimand. Considering this was Ms. Sayam's first offense, the Court sustained the recommendation to reprimand her and warned her that repetition of a similar offense would warrant a more severe penalty.
Main Doctrine
Habitual tardiness by employees of the Judiciary is a violation of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from those connected with the administration of justice, as public office is a public trust. Such infraction compromises efficiency and hampers public service, and is not excused by personal reasons such as traffic problems or domestic concerns. The penalty for habitual tardiness, as a first offense, is reprimand with a warning.