ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-04-1846.� August 31, 2005]
OCA vs. BACARRO
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 31 2005.
A.M. No. P-04-1846 (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. NOEL B. BACARRO, Clerk III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Office of the Clerk of Court, Cagayan de Oro City.)
This Administrative matter refers to the habitual tardiness of Noel B. Bacarro, Clerk III, MTCC-OCC, Cagayan de Oro City.
On March 22, 2004, Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer Hermogena Bayani [1] cralaw issued a certification indicating that Noel Bacarro incurred tardiness on the following dates:
April 2002�������������� 19 times
May 2002��������������� 19 times
June 2002�������������� 16 times
January 2003��������� 14 times
February 2003������� 14 times
March 2003����������� 13 times
Bacarro explained [2] cralaw that in the months of April, May and June of 2002, he incurred excessive tardiness because he needed to attend to his ailing father who was suffering from cancer of the throat at its terminal stage. He is the son closest to the father, and the most available to keep a close watch over him. He stated that the letter was not meant to justify his tardiness but that it was a plea for understanding.
We note that he offered no explanation for his tardiness in 2003.
On May 19, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Bacarro be reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
On June 23, 2004, this Court issued a resolution requiring Bacarro to manifest whether he was submitting the case on the basis of the records already filed and submitted.
Bacarro failed to comply. Hence, the case was submitted for resolution.
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23 Series of 1998 provides:
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 (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
While we sympathize with Bacarro's domestic predicament, we cannot disregard the fact that, in having been habitually tardy, he fell short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. Moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness, although these may be considered to mitigate administrative liability. [3] cralaw
Bacarro claims to be the most available to tend to his sick father's needs. We would like to remind him, however, that aside from his duties as a son he also has responsibilities to the court which should likewise be met.
By reason of the nature and the functions of their office, officials and employees of the judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. [4] cralaw Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service. [5] cralaw To inspire public respect for the judicial system, court employees must strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. [6] cralaw
Bacarro was tardy for a total of 95 times over six months in 2002 and 2003. However, this being the first administrative case filed against him for habitual tardiness, we find it appropriate to adopt the recommendation of the Court Administrator. Thus the penalty of reprimand should suffice.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Bacarro is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to his 201 file.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Office of the Court Administrator, Leave Division.
[2] cralaw May 26, 2003.
[3] cralaw Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties on Employees of this Court for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Semester of 2000, 441 Phil 240 (2002).
[4] cralaw Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[5] cralaw Administrative Circular No. 2-99, "Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness, dated January 15, 1999.
[6] cralaw Administrative Circular 1-99, "Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Official and Employees.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
