AM 00 6 09 SC; (November, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC
Date: November 27, 2002
Case Parties: RE: IMPOSITION OF CORRESPONDING PENALTIES ON THE FOLLOWING EMPLOYEES OF THIS COURT FOR HABITUAL TARDINESS COMMITTED DURING THE SECOND SEMESTER OF 2000: FE MALOU B. CASTELO, MERCEDITA B. COSTALES, NORA B. ANG, WILFREDO FLORENDO, LOURDES LORICO, ERNESTO D. SASIS, JR., JUAN FRANCISCO BORJA, ALBERT SEMILLA, NEWTON ILAGAN, ROMMEL JUPIA, EUTIQUIA RAMIREZ, RICARDO PAMINTUAN, LEO PAGSANJAN, MA. ANA CABANGUNAY, ROSEMARIE RECINTO, ROBERTO HOMERES, ROMEO AGUDELO, FREDERICK AGUILAR, CARLITO CURITANA, OMAR FARRALES, SHIRLEY MAY SANTOS, LADISLAO DEL ROSARIO, RENATO LABAY, and JASMIN CELOCIA.
FACTS
1. Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of the Supreme Court, recommended administrative penalties against twenty-four (24) Court employees for habitual tardiness during the second semester of 2000, pursuant to Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circulars.
2. The Leave Division submitted the list of habitually tardy employees on February 20, 2001. Each employee was required to explain their tardiness.
3. The employees provided various explanations, including health issues, family responsibilities, distance from work, traffic congestion, and personal problems.
4. Several employees had prior records: Castelo, Costales, Ang, Florendo, and Lorico had previous habitual tardiness offenses in 1999 and 2000, for which they received reprimands and suspensions. Sasis, Semilla, and Borja were previously reprimanded, while Ramirez, Ilagan, and Jupia were sternly warned for habitual tardiness in the first semester of 2001.
5. Atty. Candelaria recommended graduated penalties based on the employees’ prior offenses and the number of months of tardiness, ranging from stern warnings to three-month suspensions without pay.
ISSUE
What are the appropriate administrative penalties to be imposed on the Supreme Court employees found guilty of habitual tardiness during the second semester of 2000, considering their respective explanations and prior records?
RULING
The Supreme Court ADOPTED the recommendation of Deputy Clerk of Court Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, imposing the following penalties:
a) SUSPENSION for three (3) months without pay with a FINAL WARNING for Fe Malou B. Castelo, Mercedita B. Costales, Nora B. Ang, Wilfredo Florendo, and Lourdes Lorico, for committing habitual tardiness for the third time.
b) SUSPENSION for five (5) days without pay for Ernesto D. Sasis, Albert Semilla, and Juan Francisco Borja, who were earlier reprimanded for their first offense and committed habitual tardiness for the second time.
c) REPRIMAND with a warning for Eutiquia Ramirez, Newton Ilagan, and Rommel Jupia, who were sternly warned for their first offense.
d) STERN WARNING for Ricardo Pamintuan, Leo Pagsanjan, Rosemarie Recinto, Roberto Homeres, Romeo Agudelo, Frederick Aguilar, Carlito Curitana, Omar Farrales, Shirley May Santos, Ladislao del Rosario, Renato Labay, Ma. Ana Cabangunay, and Jasmin Celocia, this being their first offense.
The Court emphasized that habitual tardiness constitutes misconduct and gross inefficiency, which undermines public service. It reiterated that public office is a public trust and that court employees must uphold the highest standards of integrity, probity, and diligence to maintain the Judiciary’s good name.