September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-11-2987 (Formerly OCA-IP1 No. 10-3468-P) : September 21, 2011]
LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MR. RICARDO S. GABRIEL, PROCESS SERVER, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY
A.M. No. P-11-2987 [Formerly OCA-IP1 No. 10-3468-P] (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Mr. Ricardo S. Gabriel, Process Server, Metropolitan Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Caloocan City).
RESOLUTION
This is about the habitual tardiness incurred by a court employee.
The Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported on June 23, 2010 that respondent Ricardo S. Gabriel, Process Server, Metropolitan Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Caloocan City, was tardy 11 times in February 2009 and 10 times in March 2009.
In his Undated Comment received by the OCA on October 11, 2010, Gabriel admitted being tardy as reported and apologized for the same. He explained that he suffered from Gout Arthritis, a form of arthritis caused by deposits of crystals of uric acid, which caused severe chronic pain in his legs, making his daily travel to court difficult and resulting in his tardiness. He seeks the indulgence of the court and promises to mend his ways.
The OCA, however, finds that his explanation deserves scant consideration since he failed to submit proof that he suffered from the illness. It recommends that Gabriel be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same will warrant a more severe penalty.
We agree.
Under Civil Service Memorandum Circular 4, Series of 1991, an employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness regardless of the number of minutes, 10 times a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year. Pursuant to this provision, Gabriel has been habitually tardy. The OCA's recommendation of reprimand and warning also finds support in Sec. 52(c) (4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular 19, Series of 1999, which penalizes the first offense of tardiness with a reprimand.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court REPRIMANDS respondent Ricardo S. Gabriel, Process Server, Metropolitan Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Caloocan City, and STERNLY WARNS him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Deputy Division Clerk of Court