EN BANC
A.M. No. P-16-3471 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-197-RTC), July 26, 2016
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOHN REVEL B. PEDRIÑA, CLERK III, BRANCH 200, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
a) the instant administrative case against Mr. John Revel B. Pedriña, Clerk III, Branch 200, RTC, Las Piñas City, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and b) respondent Pedriña be found GUILTY of habitual tardiness for the third time, and accordingly, be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Photocopies of respondent Pedriña's timecards for the months of January, February, March, May, July, September, November, and December were attached to the aforementioned report.
January 10 times February 11 times March 11 times May 10 times July 14 times September 11 times November 14 times December 10 times
Any employee shall be 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 at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.He has fallen short of the stringent standard of conduct demanded from everyone connected with the administration of justice. Every person employed in the government must remember that public office is a public trust. Pursuant to this dictum, the Court issued Memorandum Circular No. 49-2003 dated December 1, 2003, reminding all government officials and employees to be accountable at all times to the people and exercise utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. They must give every minute of their prescribed official time in the service to the public and must work for every centavo paid to them by the government.1 "This duty calls for the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time for public service, if only to recompense the government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees should at all times strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible."2chanrobleslaw
The exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon court employees and judges are reflective of the premium placed on the image of the court of justice, and that image is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. It thus becomes the imperative and sacred duty of everyone charged with the dispensation of justice, from the judge to the lowliest clerk, to maintain the courts' good name and standing as true temples of justice. Circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, their conduct at all times must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but above all else, must be above suspicion. Indeed, every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence. x x xRespondent Pedriña's justification for his habitual tardiness deserves scant consideration. We have previously held that moral obligations, the performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient causes to excuse habitual tardiness.4chanrobleslaw
It must be noted that this is not the first time respondent Pedriña was penalized for habitual tardiness. First, in the Resolution dated August 8, 2005 in A.M. 05-7-421-RTC, he was reprimanded and suspended for one (1) month. Second, in the Resolution dated June 5, 2013 in A.M. No. 12-9-204-RTC [P-13-3120], he was suspended for thirty (30) days.
First Offense - Reprimand Second Offense - Suspension of 1-30 days Third Offense - Dismissal from the service
Endnotes:
1Re: Habitual Tardiness of Cesar E. Sales, Cash Clerk III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Manila, A.M. No. P-13-3171, January 28, 2014.
2 Id.; citing Cabato v. Centino, A.M. No. P-08-2572, November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA 390, 395.
3 A.M. No. P-94-1026, July 6, 1995, 245 SCRA 614, 619.
4Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2002, A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC, 14 August 2003, 409 SCRA 9, 15.
5Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the First Semester of 2005, 527 Phil. 1 (2006); citing Poso v. Judge Mijares, 436 Phil. 295 (2002).
6 Id.; citing Florendo v. Cadano, A.M. No. P-05-1983, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 448; Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, 448 Phil. 583 (2003); Judge Ortiguerra v. Genota, Jr., 434 Phil. 787 (2002).
7 Id.