Consequences of Habitual Tardiness and Unauthorized Absences for Philippine Government Employees

A.M. No. P-95-1147, April 25, 1996

Imagine a government office where employees frequently arrive late or are often absent. This disrupts public service and erodes public trust. The Supreme Court case of Atty. Grace S. Belvis and Francisco D. Araña, Jr. vs. Ferdinand Miguel S. Fernandez addresses this issue, highlighting the importance of punctuality and attendance for government employees. This case serves as a reminder that public service demands responsibility, and habitual tardiness or unauthorized absences can lead to disciplinary action.

Legal Framework for Attendance and Punctuality

Philippine law emphasizes the importance of efficient public service. This is reflected in regulations concerning attendance and punctuality for government employees. Memorandum Circular No. 30 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) series of 1989 and Memorandum Circular No. 04, S. 1991 define what constitutes habitual tardiness and unauthorized absences, and the corresponding penalties.

Defining Habitual Tardiness and Absences:

Memorandum Circular No. 04 S. of 1989 states that “an officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.”

Memorandum Circular No. 4, S. 1991 defines habitual tardiness as when “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) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.”

Example: If a government employee is late for work 10 or more times in January and February, they can be considered habitually tardy under CSC rules.

Case Summary: Fernandez’s Absences and Tardiness

This case involves Ferdinand Miguel S. Fernandez, a Clerk III in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. He faced administrative charges due to frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness. His superiors, Attys. Grace S. Belvis and Francisco D. Araña, Jr., filed the complaint after repeated instances of absences and tardiness despite prior warnings.

• Initial Warning: Fernandez was initially warned about his absences from October 1993 to September 1994.
• Continued Offenses: Despite promising improvement, he continued to be late or absent in January, February, and March 1995.
• Explanation: Fernandez explained that his absences were due to personal problems involving his wife.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated the matter. Fernandez claimed his absences were covered by leave applications, but records showed a pattern of habitual tardiness.

The Supreme Court quoted the Constitution, emphasizing that “A public office is a public trust. Public Officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings, stating, “There is no question that respondent is prejudicing public service with frequent absences and tardiness. His conduct certainly falls short of the standards prescribed by the Constitution for public officer and employees…”

Impact on Public Service

This case underscores the importance of diligence in public service. Government employees are expected to be punctual and regular in their attendance. When employees are frequently absent or tardy, it disrupts the workflow, delays services to the public, and undermines the integrity of the government. The Court emphasized that those involved in the administration of justice should maintain a high standard of responsibility. Any behavior that diminishes the public’s faith in the Judiciary cannot be tolerated.

Key Lessons:

• Punctuality and Attendance Matter: Government employees must prioritize punctuality and regular attendance.
• Justification Required: Absences must be properly justified and supported by approved leave applications.
• Consequences Exist: Habitual tardiness and unauthorized absences can lead to disciplinary actions, including suspension or dismissal.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is considered habitual tardiness for government employees?

A: Habitual tardiness is defined as being late for work ten (10) or more times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or two (2) consecutive months during the year.

Q: What is considered habitual absenteeism?

A: Habitual absenteeism is defined as incurring unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three (3) months in a semester or three (3) consecutive months during the year.

Q: What are the possible penalties for habitual tardiness or absenteeism?

A: Penalties can range from suspension to dismissal from service, depending on the frequency and severity of the offenses.

Q: Can absences covered by approved leave applications still be considered a violation?

A: While approved leave applications may prevent absences from being considered unauthorized, excessive absences, even with approved leave, can still be a basis for disciplinary action if they disrupt public service.

Q: What should I do if I have a legitimate reason for being late or absent?

A: Immediately inform your supervisor and file the necessary leave application with supporting documentation.

Q: Does this ruling apply to private sector employees?

A: While this specific ruling applies to government employees, private sector employees are also subject to attendance and punctuality policies set by their employers, and violations can lead to disciplinary actions as well.

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