July 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-11-2905 : July 20, 2011]
LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. ARTURO B. JOSEPH, CLERK OF COURT III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MANILA.
A.M. No. P-11-2905 � Leave Division, Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Arturo B. Joseph, Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila.
The June 23, 2010 Report of Habitual Tardiness[1] of the Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) showed that Arturo B. Joseph (Joseph), Clerk of Court III of the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 9, was tardy of least ten (10) times during each month of March, April and May, 2009. Attached were copies of his Daily Time Records for the months of March, April and May 2009.[2] This record of tardiness was referred lo the Chief of Office, Legal Office, OCA, for the filing of the appropriate administrative complaint through the 1st Indorsement dated July 12, 2010[3].
The OCA directed Joseph to comment on the complaint of habitual tardiness. He filed his comment[4] on September 13, 2010 where he admitted that he reported late for work several times in March, April and May of 2009. He also stated that he "sincerely apologizes for his said shortcoming and implores the kind consideration and leniency" of the OCA. He explained that before March 2009, he was unable to make timely payments on his two (2) credit cards resulting in calls demanding payment at his house, his office and his cellular phone. He also received demand letters and threats of legal action. He was also a 2008 bar examinee and during that period, there were rumors about the results, which contributed to his anxiety and fear. He suffered from hyperacidity, loss of appetite and insomnia. He said that sometimes he only fell asleep at dawn or early morning and consequently, he would wake up late and then report for work. The Bar exam results came out on April 3, 209 and Joseph was among those who failed. He wanted to go on vacation but since he had no money, he could only stay at home idle that he believed could lead to depression. He therefore decided to keep on reporting for work. He continued:
It took sometime before the undersigned was able to recover from the debacle and it is just unfortunate that his effort of self preservation and/or taking care of his health concerns during those times went through at the expense of his work. He therefore asks for apology and compassion of this Honorable Office.
Wherefore, undersigned respectfully prays that he be excused of the charged tardiness even as he sincerely believes that if was not at all a habit, much less deliberate on his part. It may be worth to consider also that he has already served a penalty therefor - that of having been deprived recently of the productivity bonus for the year 2009.
The OCA recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Joseph be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. Citing our ruling in Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the First Semester of 2004,[5] the OCA reasoned that family obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.
We agree with the finding and recommendation of the OCA. Joseph was habitually tardy because he incurred tardiness ten (10) limes a month for at least two (2) months.[6] Considering that this is the first time that Joseph has been charged with habitual tardiness in his more than twenty (20) years In the service, we find the recommended penalty appropriate since it is in accordance with the Civil Service Rules.[7]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find Arturo B. Joseph, Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch.9, Manila, GUILTY of habitual tardiness and is 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 3-7.
[3] Id. at 1.
[4] Id. at 10-12.
[5] A.M. No. 00-06-09-SC, November 10, 2004, 484 Phil. 480 (2004).
[6] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, as amended, provides that �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�.�
[7] Section 52(C)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, penalizes habitual tardiness as follows: First offense � Reprimand; Second offense � Suspension for 1-30 days; Third offense � Dismissal from the service.
