Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: IMPOSITION OF CORRESPONDING PENALTIES FOR HABITUAL TARDINESS COMMITTED DURING SECOND SEMESTER OF 2002 BY FOLLOWING EMPLOYEES OF THIS COURT: FE MALOU B. CASTELO v. PACHECO

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	AM No. P-11-3010 2011-11-23	LEAVE DIVISION-OAS v. LARAINE I. CALINGASAN SERENO, J.
The excuses offered by respondent are not the kind that would justify her tardiness. 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.[4]
	AM No. P-10-2807 2010-10-06	LEAVE DIVISION-OAS v. BETHEL I. ESELLER BRION, J.
(2) consecutive months.[4] To ensure the Circular's observance, we circularized it on May 5, 1998, for the information and guidance of all court officials and employees. The Court reiterated the policy on absenteeism and tardiness with the issuance of Administrative Circular No. 2-99[5] which provides, among others, that Absenteeism and Tardiness, even if not "habitual" or "frequent" under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04,
	AM No. 2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC 2005-07-22	RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FOR DISHONESTY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the cases at bar, both respondents have failed to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service. "By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof 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 are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible."[25] We cannot countenance such infraction as it seriously compromises efficiency and hampers public service.
	AM NO. P-04-1880 2005-03-18	OCA v. MR. FRANCISCO P. BAGUIO QUISUMBING, J.
Baguio's explanation of his habitual tardiness is unsatisfactory and we cannot countenance his cavalier attitude toward public service. We have previously ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.[4]
	AM No. P-04-1888 2004-10-07	OCA v. MR. WILHELM A. BARNEDO QUISUMBING, J.
We have likewise ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.[5]
	AM No.04-6-298-RTC 2004-10-06	HABITUAL TARDINESS ROSEMARIE B. PE STATISTICIAN II TINGA, J,
Hence, Pe's health concerns do not suffice to completely excuse her habitual tardiness. The Court has previously held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness, although these may be considered to mitigate administrative liability.[7]
	AM No. 04-5-277-RTC 2004-08-31	HABITUAL TARDINESS OF ARTHUR R. CABIGON TINGA, J,
By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof 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 are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[5]
	AM No. 2003-11-SC 2004-06-15	RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS INCURRED BY MR. GIDEON M. ALIBANG FOR IST SEMESTER OF 2003 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Third Offense - Dismissal" The records show that Alibang did incur tardiness 13 times in January 2003 and 11 times in February 2003. This is habitual tardiness punishable under the Civil Service Rules. As correctly found by Atty. Candelaria, none of the reasons relied upon by respondent to justify his habitual tardiness merits our consideration. We have consistently ruled that moral obligations, performance of household chores and traffic problems are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness, although in certain cases these may be considered to mitigate administrative liability.[9]