JUDICIAL INTEGRITY BOARD, COMPLAINANT, VS. RONALYN D. DAVID, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 101, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

Judicial Integrity Board versus David

The Case

This is an administrative disciplinary case brought by the Judicial Integrity Board against Ronalyn D. David, a Court Stenographer III assigned to Branch 101 of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City. The charge is habitual tardiness. The case matters because it is the Court's first application of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel to a pending administrative matter, and because it settles two practical questions every court employee must know: whether a half day sick leave can excuse a morning absence, and against which leave credits tardiness is charged.

Procedural History

The matter began with a Report on Tardiness prepared by the Employees' Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services of the Office of the Court Administrator, which recorded that David was tardy fourteen times in October 2023 and ten times in November 2023. The report was endorsed to the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Executive Director of the Judicial Integrity Board, which directed David to file a Comment. She filed a verified Comment and later a Supplemental Comment with her approved leave application attached. The Judicial Integrity Board found her guilty of habitual tardiness and recommended a fine of seventeen thousand five hundred one pesos and a stern warning. The matter was then submitted to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the factual findings but reclassified the offense under the new Code and imposed a lighter penalty.

Facts

David had served in the Judiciary for almost seventeen years and had no previous disciplinary record. Her superiors rated her outstanding in her performance reviews. In September 2023 she took the bar examinations, and when she returned to work in October she was still feeling drained from studying and taking the examinations.

Records showed that she was tardy fourteen times in October 2023 and ten times in November 2023. She disputed the November count, insisting she was late only nine times. She explained that she was on sick leave for the whole day of November 7, 2023 and half of the day of November 8, 2023, and that she immediately filed her leave application, which the presiding judge recommended for approval and which the executive judge approved. She said she was erroneously recorded as tardy on November 8 because she failed to indicate the half day sick leave on her daily time record.

On November 8, 2023, she reported for work at 10:25 in the morning. Her leave application for that date was not supported by a medical certificate. The Judicial Integrity Board found her explanations insufficient, ruled that there was no legal basis for a half day sick leave, and recommended a fine. The Supreme Court agreed that she was habitually tardy but found that her tardiness caused no prejudice to the operations of her office.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent was actually tardy ten times for two consecutive months, considering that she was absent during the morning of November 8, 2023 on an approved half day sick leave.
• Whether or not the respondent's offense should be classified as a less serious offense or as a light offense under the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel.
• Whether or not the respondent's tardiness should be deducted against her vacation leave credits or against her sick leave credits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of the General Provisions of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel provides:

SECTION 1. Transitory clause. – The Code shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.

This clause authorized the Court to apply the new Code to this pending case instead of the older Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

Section 20 of Canon V of the same Code provides:

SECTION 20. Less Serious offenses. – Less Serious offenses include: (b) Habitual tardiness causing prejudice to the operations of the office and/or habitual absenteeism;

This provision defines the graver form of the offense, which requires prejudice to the operations of the office.

Section 21 of Canon V provides:

SECTION 21. Light Offenses. – Light Offenses include: (c) Ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to the operations of the office.

This is the provision under which the respondent was ultimately held liable.

Section 22 of Canon V provides:

SECTION 22. Penalties – (3) If the respondent is found guilty of a Light Offense, any of the following penalties shall be imposed: (a) a fine of not less than PHP 20,000.00 but not more than PHP 50,000.00; (b) Censure; or (c) Reprimand.

This sets the range of penalties from which the Court chose a reprimand.

Section 24 of Canon V provides:

SECTION 24. Modifying circumstances. – In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court may, in its discretion, appreciate the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances: (1) Mitigating circumstances: (a) First offense; (b) Length of service of at least, 10 years with no previous disciplinary case where respondent was meted with an administrative penalty; (c) Exemplary performance; (d) Humanitarian considerations; (e) Unconditional admission of guilt and public demonstration of remorse; and (f) Other analogous circumstances.

Three of these mitigating circumstances were present and justified the lightest penalty.

Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 17, series of 2010, as reiterated in OCA Circular Number 118-2010, provides:

Any officer or employee who is absent in the morning is considered to be tardy and is subject to the provisions on habitual tardiness.

This is the rule that defeated the respondent's half day sick leave defense.

Section 34 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, Tardiness, and Undertime provides:

Section 34. Tardiness and undertime are deducted against vacation leave credits. – Tardiness and undertime are deducted from vacation leave credits and shall not be charged against sick credits, unless the undertime is for health reasons supported by medical certificate and application for leave.

This governs which leave credits absorb the respondent's tardiness.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent was indeed tardy ten times in November 2023. She did not deny being absent on the morning of November 8, 2023, and she reported for work only at 10:25 in the morning. Under the Civil Service Commission policy, any officer or employee absent in the morning is considered tardy and is subject to the provisions on habitual tardiness. The Court stressed that there is no half day sick leave contemplated under the Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations. Thus, even if her application for sick leave was approved, she was still tardy. Together with her fourteen tardy days in October 2023, she was habitually tardy for two consecutive months.

On the second issue, the Court held that the offense is a light offense. What is crucial is whether the tardiness caused prejudice to the operations of the office. The Court affirmed the finding that no prejudice was caused, so the respondent was guilty only of ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to the operations of the office. Because three mitigating circumstances were present, namely first offense, length of service of at least ten years with no previous disciplinary case, and exemplary performance, and because the Court had previously imposed reprimand on first time offenders, a reprimand sufficed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the tardiness must be deducted against vacation leave credits. The respondent's sick leave application was not supported by a medical certificate, so the exception in Section 34 did not apply.

Doctrine

First, any employee who is absent in the morning is considered tardy and is subject to the rules on habitual tardiness, and there is no half day sick leave under the Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations. An approved leave application does not erase the tardiness; it only determines which leave credits absorb it.

Second, under the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel, habitual tardiness is a less serious offense only when it causes prejudice to the operations of the office; ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice is a light offense punishable by fine, censure, or reprimand.

Third, under the transitory clause, the new Code applies to all pending and future cases unless retroactive application is not feasible or would work injustice.

Fourth, tardiness and undertime are deducted against vacation leave credits, and may be charged against sick leave credits only when the undertime is for health reasons supported by a medical certificate and an application for leave.

Disposition

The Court found respondent Ronalyn D. David guilty of ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to the operations of the office, reprimanded her with a stern warning, ordered that any sick leave credit she lost be redeemed, and directed that her undertime on November 8, 2023 be deducted from her vacation leave credits.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an employee absent in the morning is tardy, and there is no such thing as a half day sick leave. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between less serious and light offenses under the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel, and the rule that tardiness is charged against vacation leave credits absent a medical certificate.