Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > May 2011 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-11-2906 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P] : May 30, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. CESAR V. ACANCE, RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, QUEZON CITY :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 May 2011 which reads as follows:

A.M. No. P-11-2906 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P] (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Cesar V. Acance, Records Officer I, Metropolitan Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City).-

This is about habitual tardiness incurred by a court employee allegedly due to a lingering illness.

The Facts and the Case 

The Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported on June 23, 2010 that respondent Cesar V. Acance, Records Officer I, Metropolitan Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, incurred the following tardiness in 2008:

February	-	11 times
April	-	14 times
July	-	14 times
October	-	15 times

Required to comment, respondent Acance admits in his letter of September 1, 2010 having been tardy but begs for compassion. He explained that his tardiness was due to kidney failure (End Stage Renal Disease) that was diagnosed in June 2005. He claims that he has since been undergoing dialysis twice a week. He managed, despite his illness, to report for work and do his job. 

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

Civil Service 1998 Memorandum Circular 23 provides that an 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 months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year. Under this rule, there is no question that Acance had been habitually, tardy.

Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of Civil Service Circular 19, series of 1999, its Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, imposes the following penalty for tardiness:

1st Offense	-	Reprimand
2nd Offense	-	Suspension
3rd Offense	-	Dismissal
x x x

Still, under the Civil Service Rules,^[1] the mitigating circumstances of physical illness and good faith shall be appreciated in determining the penalty to be imposed for such tardiness. 

Since this is Acance's first offense, the penalty imposable against him would normally be one of reprimand. But, considering that his tardiness has been inevitably, given the nature of his illness and the treatment it requires, admonition would be in order. He must, however, take steps to apply with the Court for special permission to go for required medical treatment with the least impairment of schedule of his work and the performance of his duties or face the consequences of renewed charges of tardiness.

WHEREFORE, the Court ADMONISHES respondent Cesar V. Acance, Records Officer I, Metropolitan Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, for habitual tardiness and WARNS him that, unless he gets special permission to go for required medical treatment, a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

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

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Civil Service Resolution No. 99-1936, August 31, 2009).