Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > July 2011 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-09-2655 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2958-P) : July 20, 2011] RE: LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR - VERSUS - RENE A. CABRAL, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BATANGAS CITY. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 20 July 2011 which reads as follows:

A.M. No. P-09-2655 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2958-P) RE: LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR - versus - RENE A. CABRAL, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BATANGAS CITY. 

We act on the Report of Tardiness dated September 11, 2008^[1] and the complaint for Habitual Tardiness filed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Ms. Rene A. Cabral, Utility Worker I (respondent), Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Batangas City.

The Report shows that the respondent was absent eleven (11) times in January 2008, sixteen (16) times in February 2008, and twelve (12) times in April 2008.

In her letter-comment dated November 3, 2008,^[2] written in the vernacular, the respondent explained that she is separated from her husband and lives with her child and a 69-year old sister. She has to attend to the needs of her sister, who is sick and bedridden, before going to her office. Her sister is left alone in the house the whole day, so she has to prepare her food before leaving for work. With her meager salary, she cannot afford to hire somebody to take care of her sister.

On the recommendation of the OCA, the Court issued a Resolution dated July 15, 2009,^[3]  directing that the present complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative case and requiring the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.

The respondent failed to submit the required manifestation,^[4] within the required period. The Court thus dispensed with the respondent's manifestation and considered the case submitted for resolution based on the materials on record.^[5]

Under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, an employee is considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness ten times a month for at least two (2) consecutive months during the year. Based on the report of the OAS, it is clear that the respondent is guilty of habitual tardiness.

By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the judiciary must faithfully observe the constitutional Canon that public office is a public trust. This duty calls for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time for public service, if only to recompense the government and, ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. Thus, to inspire public interest in the justice system, court officials and employees should at all times strictly observe official time.^[6]

Under Section 52(C)(4), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows:

1st Offense - Reprimand
2nd Offense - Suspension
3rd Offense - Dismissal from the Service

While habitual tardiness cannot be excused by invoking moral obligations, traffic problems, performance of household chores and health conditions, we have mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons.^[7] In the present case, we consider the respondent's situation of taking care of a sick sister by herself and her plea for understanding and compassion in imposing the appropriate penalty. This is also her first offense.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Ms. Rene A. Cabral, Utility Worker I, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Batangas City, guilty of Habitual Tardiness. She is hereby REPRIMANDED AND WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 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] Submitted by the leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA); rollo, p. 5. 

^[2] Rollo, pp. 11-12. 

^[3] Id. at 25. 

^[4] A copy of the resolution dated July 15, 2009 was received by the respondent, evidenced by Registry Return Receipt No. 15620. 

^[5] Resolution dated July 4, 2011. 

^[6] Cabato v. Centino, A.M. No. P-08-2572, November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA 390. 

^[7] Ibid.

Back to Home | Back to Main