Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-10-2871 [Formerly OCA-IPI No. 10-3424-P] : December 08, 2010] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. CAMILLE COZETTE B. ALMADA, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 December 2010 which reads as follows:

A.M. No. P-10-2871 [Formerly OCA-IPI No. 10-3424-P] (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Camille Cozette B. Almada, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Bi�an, Laguna).-

This is about habitual tardiness incurred by a court employee allegedly due to the distress she suffered by reason of her father's stroke.

The Facts and the Case

The Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported on June 15, 2010 that respondent Camille Cozette B. Almada (Almada), Clerk III, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Bi�an, Laguna, incurred the following tardiness in the year 2010:


Required to comment, respondent admitted in her letter dated August 18, 2010 having been tardy as reported but begs for compassion. She explained it was due to the distress she suffered after her father suffered a stroke in the last week of December 2009.

OCA holds the view, however, that respondent's explanation does not justify her habitual tardiness. Thus, it recommends that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Almada be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

We agree.

Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, provides
that:

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.

Applying the above provisions, there is no doubt that respondent Almada is guilty of habitual tardiness.

The Court has previously held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health, domestic, and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.^[1] As such, the OCA was correct in finding Almada's explanation unworthy of credence.

Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of Civil Service Circular No. 19, series of 1999 on the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides:

C. The following are Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:

4. Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)

    1st Offense - Reprimand

    2n Offense - Suspension 1-30 days

    3rd Offense - Dismissal

    x x x x

Considering that this is Almada's first offense, the penalty of reprimand is appropriate.

WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS respondent Camille Cozette B. Almada, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Bi�an, Laguna and WARNS her that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 456 Phil. 183, 190-191 (2003).