This Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of punctuality and adherence to work hours for public servants. Glenn A. Javeñar, a Court Stenographer II, was found guilty of habitual tardiness and suspended for twenty days. This ruling reaffirms that consistent tardiness, even when partially explained by personal circumstances, is a breach of public trust and carries disciplinary consequences.

When Personal Struggles Collide with Professional Duties: Can Tardiness Be Excused?

Glenn A. Javeñar, working as a Court Stenographer II, found himself facing administrative charges due to his frequent tardiness. His attendance record revealed a pattern of lateness occurring more than ten times a month over several months in 2002 and 2003. Javeñar explained that his tardiness stemmed from his responsibility in caring for his sick child, whose needs required him to be in and out of the hospital. He cited the demands of feeding his son, administering medications, and ensuring his comfort. However, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) deemed this explanation insufficient to excuse his consistent tardiness, triggering a formal review of the matter.

The core legal question revolves around balancing personal obligations with professional responsibilities in the context of public service. The Supreme Court needed to determine whether Javeñar’s explanation justified his habitual tardiness, or if disciplinary measures were warranted to uphold the standards of punctuality and diligence expected of government employees. The implications of this decision affect not only Javeñar, but all public servants who face similar dilemmas in balancing their work and family lives.

The Supreme Court, in its resolution, acknowledged Javeñar’s parental obligations. However, it emphasized that these concerns did not entirely excuse his habitual tardiness. The Court referenced prior rulings establishing that **moral obligations, household chores, traffic problems, health issues, and domestic and financial concerns are insufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness**, although they may mitigate administrative liability. It was further noted that Javeñar’s tardiness continued even after his wife resigned to care for their child, undermining his primary justification.

The Court reaffirmed the significance of observing official time, emphasizing that “as punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.” Court employees must serve as role models by adhering to the principle that **public office is a public trust**, mandating adherence to prescribed office hours and the efficient use of time for public service. This conduct promotes the integrity of the Judiciary.

The Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, defines **habitual tardiness** as incurring tardiness ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester, or two (2) consecutive months during the year. Given Javeñar’s repeated instances of tardiness, the Court ruled that a mere reprimand, as recommended by the OCA, was insufficient.

Civil Service Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, outlines the penalties for light offenses, including habitual tardiness, under Section 52(C)(4), Rule VI:

C. The following are Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:

x    x    x

4. Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)

1^st offense          –           Reprimand
2^nd Offense        –           Suspension 1-30 days
3^rd Offense        –           Dismissal

Recognizing that Javeñar had committed two counts of habitual tardiness, the Court imposed a suspension of twenty (20) days. The penalty considered his six years in government service and the fact that he had not previously faced administrative charges. This decision serves as a firm reminder to all public servants of the importance of punctuality and dedication to their duties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Glenn A. Javeñar’s explanation for his habitual tardiness, citing his parental obligation to care for his sick child, justified his repeated instances of lateness. The Court had to decide if his reasons were sufficient to excuse the violation of rules on punctuality for public servants.
What is considered habitual tardiness according to Civil Service rules?	Habitual tardiness is defined as incurring 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. This is as per Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998.
What penalties can be imposed for habitual tardiness?	Under Civil Service Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, the penalties for habitual tardiness range from a reprimand for the first offense to suspension (1-30 days) for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense. The severity increases with repeated violations.
Can personal reasons excuse habitual tardiness?	The Supreme Court has generally held that personal reasons, such as moral obligations, household chores, health issues, and domestic and financial concerns, are not sufficient to entirely excuse habitual tardiness. These reasons may be considered to mitigate administrative liability.
Why is punctuality important for public servants?	Punctuality is crucial because public office is a public trust, and public servants must be role models in the faithful observance of their duties. Adhering to prescribed office hours ensures efficient public service, compensating the government and the people who fund the Judiciary.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court found Glenn A. Javeñar guilty of habitual tardiness and suspended him for twenty (20) days. It served as a stern warning, indicating that any future similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.
What was the OCA’s recommendation?	The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Javeñar’s explanation insufficient and recommended that he be reprimanded. However, the Supreme Court deemed a reprimand inadequate, opting instead for a suspension due to the repeated instances of tardiness.
Does this ruling apply to all government employees?	Yes, the principles established in this ruling generally apply to all government employees. It highlights the importance of punctuality and the consequences of habitual tardiness within the Philippine public service.

This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining standards of professionalism and accountability among its employees. Public servants are expected to prioritize their duties and uphold the principle that public office is a public trust. Strict adherence to official time is essential for efficient public service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HABITUAL TARDINESS GLENN A. JAVEÑAR, METC-OCC, QUEZON CITY, A.M. No. 04-5-128-MeTC, September 30, 2004