RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MS. ADELAIDA E. SAYAM, CLERK III, RTC, BRANCH 5, CEBU CITY.

Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Adelaida E. Sayam

The Case

This is an administrative matter concerning Ms. Adelaida E. Sayam, a Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City, whose repeated tardiness in reporting for work was reported to the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and found that she had been habitually tardy over several months, and the question was whether her personal circumstances — two small children and heavy morning traffic from Minglanilla — could excuse the infraction. The case matters because it fixes the standard of punctuality demanded of all judiciary personnel and illustrates how the Court applies the civil service rule on habitual tardiness and its graduated penalties.

Procedural History

The matter began within the Supreme Court itself. On March 10, 2003, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño issued a memorandum to Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr., Presiding Judge of Branch 5, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, informing him that the respondent, a clerk of his court, had incurred tardiness in October and November in violation of Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998, and directing her to explain in writing within seventy-two hours why no administrative action should be taken against her.

The respondent submitted her explanation. On March 15, 2004, the Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Office of the Court Administrator issued a certification confirming her tardiness not only in October and November 2002 but also in January and February 2003. On April 6, 2004, Deputy Court Administrator Elepaño referred the matter to the Officer-in-Charge of the Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action. On June 1, 2004, that office submitted its Report and Recommendation, finding that the respondent had indeed violated the rule on tardiness and recommending that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that she be reprimanded with a warning.

The Supreme Court then issued a Resolution on July 26, 2004, requiring the respondent to manifest within twenty days from notice whether she was submitting the case for decision based on the pleadings and records filed. On September 21, 2006, she filed her manifestation submitting the case for resolution. The case was thus decided by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter, without any intermediate appellate proceedings.

Facts

Ms. Adelaida E. Sayam served as Clerk III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City. A memorandum from the Deputy Court Administrator informed her presiding judge that she had been tardy in October and November, in violation of the Supreme Court circular on habitual tardiness, and she was ordered to explain within seventy-two hours.

A certification from the Office of the Court Administrator later confirmed that her tardiness was not confined to those two months. She was tardy ten times in October 2002, thirteen times in November 2002, sixteen times in January 2003, and eleven times in February 2003.

In her explanation, the respondent pleaded that she had two small children and lived in Minglanilla, in the southern part of Cebu, where traffic was heavy every morning. She promised to try her best to wake up early every day and asked for time to discipline herself and eventually comply with the standard set by the Civil Service Commission for all government personnel. The Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator found that her explanation did not merit consideration, noting that moral obligations, household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for habitual tardiness under the civil service rule.
• Whether or not her explanations — caring for two small children and heavy morning traffic — excuse her habitual tardiness.
• Whether or not the penalty of reprimand is the proper penalty for a first offense of habitual tardiness.

Applicable Provisions

Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998, defines habitual tardiness in the civil service:

Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1998, an officer or employee of the civil service shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs 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.

This definition is the test the Court applied, and the respondent's record of tardiness in consecutive months plainly satisfied it.

Section 52, paragraph C, subparagraph 4, Rule VI of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, fixes the penalties:

First Offense - Reprimand
Second Offense - Suspension for 1-30 days
Third Offense - Dismissal from the service

This schedule supplied the penalty, and because this was the respondent's first offense, the Court imposed the first-offense penalty of reprimand.

Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, cited by the Court, provides:

Public office is a public trust.

This constitutional canon underlies the Court's insistence that judiciary personnel strictly observe official time.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no question the respondent incurred habitual tardiness. Her record showed tardiness ten times in October 2002, thirteen times in November 2002, sixteen times in January 2003, and eleven times in February 2003 — well beyond the threshold of ten times a month for at least two consecutive months. The Court could not countenance such an infraction, as it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service.

On the second issue, the Court held that none of the reasons the respondent relied upon justified her habitual tardiness. It adopted the reasoning of the Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness. The Court grounded this on the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, explaining that public officials and employees must follow the Civil Service Law and Rules, and that inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment for public service, if only to recompense the Government and ultimately the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. 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 the third issue, the Court sustained the recommendation that the respondent be reprimanded, considering that this was the first time she incurred habitual tardiness. Applying the schedule in the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the first offense carries the penalty of reprimand.

Doctrine

An officer or employee of the civil service is habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year, as provided in Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998.

Moral obligations, household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.

Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalties for habitual tardiness are: first offense, reprimand; second offense, suspension for one to thirty days; third offense, dismissal from the service.

Public office is a public trust under Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution; court officials and employees must strictly observe official time, since punctuality is a virtue and absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent administratively liable for habitual tardiness, reprimanded her, and warned that a repetition of a similar offense would warrant a more severe penalty.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: ten times a month for at least two consecutive months makes an employee habitually tardy, and traffic, children, and household concerns do not excuse it. Examiners use this case to test the definition of habitual tardiness and the graduated penalties of reprimand, suspension, and dismissal under the civil service rules.