November 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > November 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-09-2709 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2959-P] : November 16, 2009] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. RUFINO B. LAQUINDANUM, JR., CLERK II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CLARK FIELD, PAMPANGA :
[A.M. No. P-09-2709 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2959-P] : November 16, 2009]
LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. RUFINO B. LAQUINDANUM, JR., CLERK II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CLARK FIELD, PAMPANGA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 November 2009:
A.M. No. P-09-2709 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2959-P] - (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Rufino B. Laquindanum, Jr., Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Clark Field, Pampanga).
This administrative complaint stemmed from a Report of Tardiness dated August 29, 2008 of the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that respondent Rufino B. Laquindanum, Jr., Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Clark Field, Pampanga, had been tardy during the following months of the year 2008:
Required to comment, respondent explained in his letter dated October 20, 2008 that he had been tardy because he often remained at home to take care of their child and before going to work he had to bring the child to his mother-in-law's house where the child would stay the whole day while his wife was looking for work to augment their income. He expressed regret for his tardiness and promised to observe office hours.
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, provides that:
Applying the above provisions, it is evident that respondent Laquindanum had been habitually tardy. His explanation cannot justify his failure to report punctually for work although these may be considered to mitigate administrative liability.[1] The need for strict observance of official time has been emphasized by the Court in Administrative Circular No. 1-99 (Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and Employees) and Administrative Circular No. 2-99 (Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Habitual Tardiness). Tardiness causes inefficiency and is prejudicial to public service.
Under Section 52(c) of SC Memorandum No. 19, Series of 1999, the first offense for habitual tardiness is penalized by reprimand.
WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS respondent Rufino B. Laquindanum, Jr., Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Clark Field, Pampanga and WARNS him that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of November, 2009.
A.M. No. P-09-2709 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2959-P] - (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Rufino B. Laquindanum, Jr., Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Clark Field, Pampanga).
This administrative complaint stemmed from a Report of Tardiness dated August 29, 2008 of the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that respondent Rufino B. Laquindanum, Jr., Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Clark Field, Pampanga, had been tardy during the following months of the year 2008:
April - 12 times
May - 18 times
June - 12 times
Required to comment, respondent explained in his letter dated October 20, 2008 that he had been tardy because he often remained at home to take care of their child and before going to work he had to bring the child to his mother-in-law's house where the child would stay the whole day while his wife was looking for work to augment their income. He expressed regret for his tardiness and promised to observe office hours.
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, provides that:
Any 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 (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
Applying the above provisions, it is evident that respondent Laquindanum had been habitually tardy. His explanation cannot justify his failure to report punctually for work although these may be considered to mitigate administrative liability.[1] The need for strict observance of official time has been emphasized by the Court in Administrative Circular No. 1-99 (Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials and Employees) and Administrative Circular No. 2-99 (Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Habitual Tardiness). Tardiness causes inefficiency and is prejudicial to public service.
Under Section 52(c) of SC Memorandum No. 19, Series of 1999, the first offense for habitual tardiness is penalized by reprimand.
WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS respondent Rufino B. Laquindanum, Jr., Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Clark Field, Pampanga and WARNS him that a repetition of the same offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of November, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 441 Phil. 240, 248 (2002).
