April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-11-2964 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3359-P] : April 25, 2012]
LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. PROCESS SERVER EDUARDO E. TRINILLA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BR. 3, BACOLOD CITY
A.M. No. P-11-2964 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3359-P] (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Process Server Eduardo E. Trinilla, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Br. 3, Bacolod City). � On 3 March 2010, the Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted to the OCA a Report on the tardiness incurred by Eduardo E. Trinilla, a process server of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3 of Bacolod City. The Report alleged that Trinilla, whose official working hours were from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. was tardy eleven (11) times in September 2009; fourteen (14) times in October 2009; ten (10) times in November 2009; and ten (10) times in December 2009.
For his part, Trinilla alleged that his tardiness was attributable to those times when he had to serve court processes outside Bacolod City before going to work in order to catch up with the persons concerned. He admitted that he was fully aware of his infractions, offered his apologies, and vowed to be punctual in reporting for work. Nonetheless, he failed to present evidence that would prove that his tardiness was due to official business.
On 24 May 2011, the OCA issued a recommendation that respondent be reprimanded considering that the present case is his first offense.
This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA proper. As mentioned earlier, respondent failed to show that he was fulfilling his mandate as a court process server during those times he was considered tardy. To reiterate, such administrative offense seriously compromises work efficiency and hampers public service.[1]
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 in a semester of 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:cralaw
First offense: Reprimand Second offense: Suspension of 1-30 days Third offense: Dismissal from the service
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Eduardo E. Trinilla, Process Server of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3 of Bacolod City is hereby REPRIMANDED, this being his first offense of 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.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] A.M. No. P-11-2945, 13 July 2011.