This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-11-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| penalty. To sanction tardiness that is not habitual would open the floodgate to abuse. One is still tardy for work even if the number of tardiness does not reach the threshold number to qualify as habitual tardiness. The law does not countenance tardiness below this threshold level. Tardiness, even if not habitual, still causes inefficiency and is still prejudicial to public service. Tardiness below the threshold level is not innocuous to be simply ignored.[3] In Belvis vs. Fernandez,[4] this Court ruled that:"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 officers and employees, to wit: 'A public office is a public trust. Public | |||||