Key Takeaway: Habitual Tardiness in Government Service May Be Considered a Light Offense Under Certain Circumstances

Civil Service Commission v. Marilyn L. Gagabuan, G.R. No. 249126, September 29, 2021

Imagine a dedicated government employee who, despite their commitment to public service, struggles with arriving on time. This real-world scenario is at the heart of a significant Supreme Court decision that could affect thousands of civil servants across the Philippines. In the case of Marilyn L. Gagabuan, a Revenue Collection Clerk I from Eastern Samar, her habitual tardiness became the focal point of a legal battle that reached the highest court in the land. The central question was whether her repeated lateness warranted the severe penalty of dismissal or if it should be treated as a lighter offense.

The case began when Gagabuan faced complaints about her tardiness, leading to investigations and subsequent penalties from the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) VIII. Initially, she was suspended for six months for the first offense and dismissed from service for the second. However, Gagabuan appealed these decisions, arguing that her tardiness should be considered a light offense due to mitigating circumstances such as her acknowledgment of the infractions, remorse, and her status as a solo parent. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case sheds light on how habitual tardiness is classified and penalized in the Philippine government service.

Legal Context: Understanding the Classification of Habitual Tardiness

In the Philippine civil service, habitual tardiness is addressed under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) and the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS). These rules categorize offenses into grave, less grave, and light, each with corresponding penalties.

Under Section 52(A)(17) of the URACCS, frequent unauthorized tardiness is classified as a grave offense, punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal from service for the second. Similarly, Section 46(B)(5) of the RRACCS also classifies tardiness as a grave offense with the same penalties.

However, Section 52(C)(4) of the URACCS and Section 46(F)(4) of the RRACCS classify frequent unauthorized tardiness as a light offense, with penalties ranging from reprimand to suspension for one to thirty days, and dismissal for the third offense.

To clarify these seemingly conflicting provisions, the Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2017 (MC 01-2017), which states that the classification of habitual tardiness depends on the frequency or regularity of its commission and its effects on government service.

For example, if an employee is late ten times a month for at least two months in a semester, they could be considered habitually tardy. This classification impacts how their tardiness is treated under the law, potentially affecting their career in the civil service.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Marilyn L. Gagabuan

Marilyn L. Gagabuan’s story began in the Municipality of Gen. MacArthur, Eastern Samar, where she served as a Revenue Collection Clerk I. In May 2011, the Municipal Mayor endorsed a complaint against her to the CSCRO VIII, citing her tardiness from July 2010 to March 2011. Investigations revealed she had been tardy 85 times during this period.

A second complaint followed in September 2011, covering her tardiness from January to June 2010, where she was found to have been late 72 times. Gagabuan admitted her tardiness but argued that it had already been deducted from her leave credits.

The CSCRO VIII imposed a six-month suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second. Gagabuan appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which upheld the regional office’s decisions. Undeterred, she took her case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the penalties to a reprimand for the first offense and a thirty-day suspension for the second.

The CSC then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that habitual tardiness should be considered a grave offense. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA, emphasizing mitigating factors such as Gagabuan’s remorse and her status as a solo parent.

The Court’s reasoning included:

“The classification of Habitual Tardiness as either a grave offense or a light offense would depend on the frequency or regularity of its commission and its effects on the government service.”

“Under Section 48, Rule 10 of the RRACCS, physical fitness, good faith, first offense, length of service, and other analogous circumstances may be appreciated in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to affirm the CA’s ruling highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances when imposing penalties for habitual tardiness.

Practical Implications: Navigating Habitual Tardiness in the Civil Service

This ruling sets a precedent for how habitual tardiness may be treated in future cases within the Philippine civil service. Employees facing similar issues should be aware that their tardiness might not automatically result in severe penalties if mitigating circumstances are present.

For government employees, it’s crucial to document any mitigating factors, such as family responsibilities or health issues, that may affect their punctuality. Employers should also consider these factors when deciding on appropriate penalties, ensuring that disciplinary actions are fair and proportionate.

Key Lessons:

• Habitual tardiness can be classified as a light offense under certain circumstances.
• Mitigating factors such as remorse, length of service, and personal circumstances can influence the severity of penalties.
• Employees should maintain open communication with their supervisors about any issues affecting their punctuality.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is considered habitual tardiness in the Philippine civil service?
An employee is considered habitually tardy if they are late ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months during the year.

Can habitual tardiness lead to dismissal from service?
Yes, habitual tardiness can lead to dismissal, but it depends on the classification of the offense and the presence of mitigating factors.

What are mitigating factors in cases of habitual tardiness?
Mitigating factors can include the employee’s acknowledgment of the infraction, remorse, length of service, and personal circumstances such as being a solo parent or having health issues.

How can employees address habitual tardiness?
Employees should communicate any issues affecting their punctuality to their supervisors and take steps to improve their attendance.

What should employers consider when penalizing employees for habitual tardiness?
Employers should consider the frequency of tardiness, its impact on service, and any mitigating factors before deciding on penalties.

ASG Law specializes in employment and labor law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.