September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-11-2891 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3366-P) : September 26, 2011]
LEAVE DIVISION - OAS, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MARIE LUZ M. OBIDA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER II, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, PASAY CITY
A.M. No. P-11-2891 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3366-P) (Leave Division - OAS, Office of the Court Administrator v. Marie Luz M. Obida, Administrative Officer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasay City). - We resolve the present administrative matter in relation to the reported habitual tardiness of Marie Luz M. Obida, Administrative Officer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasay City.
A Report of Tardiness[1] submitted by the Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reveals that Ms. Obida had incurred tardiness in the following months of the year 2009: in February, thirteen (13) times; in May, ten (10) times; in August, twelve (12) times; in September, twelve (12) times; in October, twelve (12) times; in November, fourteen (14) times; and in December, ten (10) times.
In an Indorsement dated March 12, 2010,[2] Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez referred the said report to OCA Legal Office Chief Atty. Wilhelmina D. Geronga for the filing of the appropriate administrative complaint against Ms. Obida.
In another Indorsement dated March 31, 2010,[3] Court Administrator Marquez required Ms. Obida to file her comment to the report of tardiness submitted by the Leave Division. After her request for extension of time to file an answer was granted,[4] Ms. Obida sent to the OCA an undated letter of explanation,[5] received by the said office on May 11, 2010. She explained that her tardiness in the months indicated in the report was primarily due to her personally attending to the needs of certain members of her family who became ill during those times, such as her son who was diagnosed with AHINI in May 2009 and her daughter who contracted influenza in June of the same year. She claimed that the AHINI scare caused her sleepless nights and palpitations, which even led to her health's deterioration, as she was then already suffering from hyperthyroidism. Also, from September to December 2009, she was without assistance in the care for her 71-year old mother who was suffering from a mental condition known as "schizophrenia undifferentiated." In the absence of a caregiver, she had to single-handedly prepare her mother's meals, and feed and bathe her before going to work. To top it off, she had to go through the horrible traffic in Imus, Cavite, where she resides, on her way to work in Pasay City. Ms. Obida, however, professed that her attendance in January 2010 greatly improved because of the newly hired household help.
The OCA evaluated Ms. Obida's explanation and found no justification for her habitual tardiness. It recommended: (1) that the present administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; (2) that Ms. Obida be found administratively liable for habitual tardiness; and (3) that she be reprimanded, with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.[6]
THE COURT'S RULING
We adopt the OCA's recommendation and find Ms. Obida administratively liable for the offense of habitual tardiness.
Under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 04, series of 1991, an officer or employee of the civil service is 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 for at least two (2) consecutive months.[7] As gathered from her leave records, Ms. Obida's tardiness is classified as habitual considering that in two semesters of 2009, she had incurred tardiness of at least ten (10) times per month in two (2) consecutive months per semester.
We have consistently ruled that non-office obligations, household chores, and domestic concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse or justify habitual tardiness.[8] Hence, Ms. Obida's reasons for her tardiness, those of attending to her sick children and to her mother, cannot free her from her infractions. The Court cannot countenance such infractions as they seriously compromise efficiency and hamper public service. By being habitually tardy, Ms. Obida has fallen short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice.[9]
We have repeatedly reminded officials and employees of the Judiciary that by reason of the nature and functions of their office, they must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust.[10] A way of doing this is through the strict observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every working moment, if only to give back the true worth of what the Government and, ultimately, the people pay in maintaining the Judiciary.[11] Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are at all times required to strictly observe official time, as punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[12] Under Section 52(c)(4), Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows: first offense, reprimand; second offense, suspension for 1 to 30 days; and third offense, dismissal from the service.cralaw
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Marie Luz M. Obida, Administrative Officer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasay City, GUILTY of habitual tardiness. This being Ms. Obida's first offense, she is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Dated March 11, 2010; rollo, p. 2.[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id. at 10.
[4] Id. at 14.
[5] Id. at 15-16.
[6] In a Report dated November 10, 2010; id. at 51-53.
[7] Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties, 456 Phil. 183 (2003).
[8] Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness, 441 Phil. 240 (2002).
[9] Ibid.
[10] 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 1; and Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties, supra note 7.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[*] Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 1083 dated September 13, 2011.
[**] Carpio, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1084 dated September 13, 2011.
