February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-09-2728 : February 10, 2010] HABITUAL TARDINESS OF ARISTEO FRANKLIN M. GARCIA, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, MALOLOS CITY :
[A.M. No. P-09-2728 : February 10, 2010]
HABITUAL TARDINESS OF ARISTEO FRANKLIN M. GARCIA, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, MALOLOS CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 February 2010:
A.M. No. P-09-2728 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2987-P] (Habitual Tardiness of Aristeo Franklin M. Garcia, Court Interpreter III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos City).-
On October 16, 2008 the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), submitted a report, showing that Aristeo Franklin Garcia, Court Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos City, incurred 10 tardiness for January 2008 and another 10 for May 2008.
In his Comment, Garcia admitted tardiness but explained as reasons for this the fact that he was in his fourth year in law school and, on top of this, he also had to travel on weekends to Sto.Tomas, Batangas to be with his wife. After investigation, the OCA recommended that Garcia be found guilty of habitual tardiness, reprimanded, and warned that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more serious penalty on him.
The Court accepts the recommendation. An employee in the civil service is considered habitually tardy if he incurred tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, 10 times for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year.[1] Here, Garcia has incurred enough tardiness to be considered habitually tardy.
Under Section 52 (c) (4), Rule VI of the Civil Service Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 on the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty imposed for habitual tardiness by first time offenders is reprimand.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Aristeo Franklin Garcia GUILTY of habitual tardiness, REPRIMANDS him for it, and warns him that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. Perez, J., no part due to prior action as Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 10th day of February, 2010.
A.M. No. P-09-2728 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2987-P] (Habitual Tardiness of Aristeo Franklin M. Garcia, Court Interpreter III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos City).-
On October 16, 2008 the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), submitted a report, showing that Aristeo Franklin Garcia, Court Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Malolos City, incurred 10 tardiness for January 2008 and another 10 for May 2008.
In his Comment, Garcia admitted tardiness but explained as reasons for this the fact that he was in his fourth year in law school and, on top of this, he also had to travel on weekends to Sto.Tomas, Batangas to be with his wife. After investigation, the OCA recommended that Garcia be found guilty of habitual tardiness, reprimanded, and warned that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more serious penalty on him.
The Court accepts the recommendation. An employee in the civil service is considered habitually tardy if he incurred tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, 10 times for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year.[1] Here, Garcia has incurred enough tardiness to be considered habitually tardy.
Under Section 52 (c) (4), Rule VI of the Civil Service Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 on the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty imposed for habitual tardiness by first time offenders is reprimand.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Aristeo Franklin Garcia GUILTY of habitual tardiness, REPRIMANDS him for it, and warns him that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. Perez, J., no part due to prior action as Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 10th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991 of the Civil Service Commission.