Leave Division-Oas, Office Of The Court Administrator v. Calingasan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Leave Division-OAS, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), reported that Laraine I. Calingasan, a Court Stenographer II, incurred tardiness in the second semester of 2009, specifically 11 times in September, 13 times in November, and 14 times in December. Photocopies of her time cards were attached. Procedural History: The OCA referred the matter for the filing of an administrative complaint. Calingasan was asked to comment and explained that her tardiness was due to her son's post-surgery wound care until November 2009 and her own hypertension in December 2009, requiring her to wait for her blood pressure to stabilize before going to work. The OCA recommended a reprimand for her first offense of habitual tardiness, with a warning against repetition. The Petition: The OCA adopted the recommendation of the OCA, finding Calingasan guilty of habitual tardiness and imposing a reprimand with a stern warning.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Laraine I. Calingasan is guilty of habitual tardiness. Whether the excuses offered by respondent are sufficient to justify her tardiness.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Laraine I. Calingasan guilty of habitual tardiness and imposed the penalty of reprimand, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Laraine I. Calingasan is guilty of habitual tardiness: The Court found that Calingasan was indeed habitually tardy based on the Civil Service Commission (CSC) 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. The records clearly showed that Calingasan incurred tardiness 11 times in September 2009, 13 times in November 2009, and 14 times in December 2009, satisfying the definition of habitual tardiness for multiple months. As an employee of the judiciary, she failed to live up to the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. By being habitually tardy, these employees have fallen short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. On whether the excuses offered by respondent are sufficient to justify her tardiness: The Court held that the excuses offered by respondent were not sufficient to justify her tardiness. The Court reiterated its previous rulings that moral obligations, the performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient causes to excuse habitual tardiness. While the Court acknowledged the respondent's explanation regarding her son's post-surgery care and her own hypertension, these personal circumstances did not negate the fact that she was habitually tardy. The CSC rules provide specific penalties for habitual tardiness, and the nature of public service, particularly within the judiciary, requires strict adherence to official time. The respondent's situation, while understandable from a personal perspective, did not fall under any recognized exceptions that would absolve her from the administrative offense of habitual tardiness. Under Sec. 52 (C) (4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized, and since this was the first offense, the proper penalty was a reprimand with a stern warning.
Main Doctrine
Habitual tardiness by employees of the judiciary violates the stringent standard of conduct demanded from those connected with the administration of justice, and such tardiness, even if due to personal or health reasons, is generally not a sufficient cause to excuse the offense, especially when it constitutes habitual tardiness as defined by Civil Service Commission rules.