April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-11-2969 [Formerly OCA IPI 10-3442-P] : April 25, 2012]
LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CLERK III CARMELITA M. CAMANGON, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MANILA
A.M. No. P-11-2969 - [Formerly OCA IPI 10-3442-P] (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk III Carmelita M. Camangon, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Manila). — Ms. Hermogena F. Bayani, Chief of the Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted a Report dated 23 June 2010 informing the OCA that respondent Carmelita M. Camangon, Clerk III of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila had incurred tardiness during the following months for the year 2007:
November- 12 times
December -12 times
On 2 August 2010, the OCA required respondent to comment on the Report.
In her Comment dated 27 August 2010, respondent admits being tardy on numerous dates for the months of November and December of 2007, and cited personal reasons and difficulties as the causes therefor.
On 29 March 2011, the OCA recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned for her habitual tardiness.
This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA proper. Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, states:
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) consecutive months during the year.
Meanwhile, under Section 52(c) of Civil Service Commission Memorandum No. 19, Series of 1999, habitual tardiness is penalized as follows:
First offense: Reprimand Second offense: Suspension of 1-30 days Third Offense: Dismissal from the service
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Carmelita M. Camangon, Clerk III of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila is hereby REPRIMANDED, this being her first offense for habitual tardiness.
Respondent is likewise WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction from the Court.cralaw
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court