Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > July 2011 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-11-2955 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3589-P) : July 27, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. MA. THERESA O. AVILA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, LUCENA CITY:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 July 2011 which reads as follows:

A.M. No. P-11-2955 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3589-P) (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Ma. Theresa O. Avila, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City). - The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) stated in its January 6, 2011 Report^[1] that Ma. Theresa O. Avila, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City, was tardy for at least ten (10) times in both the months of July and August 2010. Attached to the Report were copies of her Daily Time Records for those months.^[2] This record of tardiness was referred to the Chief of Office, Legal Office, OCA, for the filing of the appropriate administrative complaint through the 1^st Indorsement dated January 11, 2011.^[3]

The OCA directed Avila to comment on the complaint of habitual tardiness. On February 21, 2011, Avila submitted her comment^[4]  where she expressed her "sincerest apologies" for her tardiness. She averred that she lives in Lucban, Quezon and travels for one hour to Lucena City. Since she also attends evening classes at the Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation College of Law as a 4th year student (set to graduate in April 2011), she gets home at 9:00 in the evening. She studies until midnight so that she finds it difficult to report for work on time the following day. However, she has diligently exerted her best efforts to arrive on time during the succeeding months as shown by her daily time records. She asked for understanding and consideration, and also promised to avoid being late for work in the future.

In the OCA Report dated March 23, 2011,^[5]  the OCA found Avila to be habitually tardy and recommended that she be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. The OCA cited our ruling in Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the First Semester of2005^[6] where we held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.

We find the finding and recommendation of the OCA to be well taken. The basis for the finding of habitual tardiness is Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, that defines habitual tardiness as follows: "Any employee shall be 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 is Avila's first time to be habitually tardy;^[7] hence, the OCA's recommended penalty of reprimand and warning is appropriate.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find Ma. Theresa O. Avila, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City, GUILTY of habitual tardiness. She is hereby REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely by the Court. Sereno, J., on official leave; Peralta, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1040. 

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 2.

^[2] Id. at 3-4. 

^[3] Id. at l. 

^[4] Id.at. 6-7. 

^[5] Id. at 10-11. 

^[6] A.M. No. 2005-25-SC, July 6, 2006, 494 SCRA 422. 

^[7] Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, habitual tardiness is classified as a light offense with the following penalties:

First offense � Reprimand
Second offense � Suspension for 1 to 30 days
Third offense � Dismissal.

�