September 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > September 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-07-2376 (formerly a.m. No. 07-7-386-RTC) : September 17, 2007] RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MS. FLORY A. FABIA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, DAGUPAN CITY, PANGASINAN :
[A.M. No. P-07-2376 (formerly a.m. No. 07-7-386-RTC) : September 17, 2007]
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF MS. FLORY A. FABIA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, DAGUPAN CITY, PANGASINAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 September 2007:
A.M. No. P-07-2376 (formerly a.m. No. 07-7-386-RTC) - Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Flory A. Fabia, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, Pangasinan
Records show that Ms. Flory A. Fabia, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41, was late for work twelve (12) times in October 2006 and thirteen (13) times in November 2006.
Ms. Fabia explains that from September to November 2006, she took care of her ailing, widowed mother-in-law who could no longer fend for herself. She could not afford a maid. Her mother-in-law died in February 2007. She also takes care of her children, especially the youngest who suffered a stroke. She apologizes for her attendance record and promises to be punctual in the future.
Although we commiserate with Ms. Fabia regarding her domestic problems, we must also emphasize that habitual tardiness negatively affects public service.[1]
Under Civil Service rules, Ms. Fabia was habitually tardy, for she incurred tardiness more than ten (10) times a month for two (2) consecutive months during the year.[2] The penalty for such infraction is reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense.[3]
Thus, Ms. Fabia committed one (1) count of habitual tardiness in 2006. Since this is her second offense, having been reprimanded for habitual tardiness by the First Division of this Court on December 13, 2004 in Administrative Matter No. P-04-1922,[4] we suspend Ms. Fabia for ten (10) days effective upon receipt of notice.
WHEREFORE, we find Ms. Flory A. Fabia, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41, GUILTY of habitual tardiness for the second time and hereby SUSPEND her for ten (10) days effective upon receipt of notice, with reminder of the severe penalty imposable for a third similar offense.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. P-07-2376 (formerly a.m. No. 07-7-386-RTC) - Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Flory A. Fabia, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, Pangasinan
Records show that Ms. Flory A. Fabia, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41, was late for work twelve (12) times in October 2006 and thirteen (13) times in November 2006.
Ms. Fabia explains that from September to November 2006, she took care of her ailing, widowed mother-in-law who could no longer fend for herself. She could not afford a maid. Her mother-in-law died in February 2007. She also takes care of her children, especially the youngest who suffered a stroke. She apologizes for her attendance record and promises to be punctual in the future.
Although we commiserate with Ms. Fabia regarding her domestic problems, we must also emphasize that habitual tardiness negatively affects public service.[1]
Under Civil Service rules, Ms. Fabia was habitually tardy, for she incurred tardiness more than ten (10) times a month for two (2) consecutive months during the year.[2] The penalty for such infraction is reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense.[3]
Thus, Ms. Fabia committed one (1) count of habitual tardiness in 2006. Since this is her second offense, having been reprimanded for habitual tardiness by the First Division of this Court on December 13, 2004 in Administrative Matter No. P-04-1922,[4] we suspend Ms. Fabia for ten (10) days effective upon receipt of notice.
WHEREFORE, we find Ms. Flory A. Fabia, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41, GUILTY of habitual tardiness for the second time and hereby SUSPEND her for ten (10) days effective upon receipt of notice, with reminder of the severe penalty imposable for a third similar offense.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC � Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties to Employees Committing Habitual Tardiness, Supreme Court Employees During the First Semester of 2000, April 17, 2001, p. 4 (Unsigned Resolution)
[2] Id. at 2; Civil Service Commission Memorandum No. 23, Series of 1998 � Any employee 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 .
[3] Id.; Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule IV, Section 52 C (4), dated August 31, 1999.
[4] Office of the Court Administrator v. Ms. Flory A. Fabia, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Administrative Matter No. P-04-1992 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-10-638-RTC), Resolution, First Division, December 13, 2004, p.1.
