A.M. No. P-24-192 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 23-339-P) - EMPLOYEES' LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JAVEELYN L. MATARO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 15, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NAIC, CAVITE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, be fined in the amount of PHP 17,501.00, payable within three months from the time the Court's Decision or Resolution is promulgated. [12] The JIB found that the records showed that respondent was tardy at least 10 times for two consecutive months during the year, therefore falling squarely within the definition of "habitual tardiness." Citing the 2004 case of Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness , [13] the JIB opined that health conditions would not absolve employees from administrative liability. [14] Nonetheless, the JIB recommended the further reduction of the PHP 18,000.00 fine proposed by Atty. Tolentino to PHP 17,501.00, considering the mitigating circumstance of first offense and the absence of any aggravating circumstance. [15] The Court's Ruling At the outset, it is worth highlighting that the circumstances here shed light on gaps in the Judiciary's disciplinary framework that need to be addressed. Specifically, the circumstances here warrant penalties lower than what the current rules allow . There have been several changes in how the charge of habitual tardiness of court employees has been treated and punished over the years, and the instant case presents a timely opportunity for the Court to determine and reexamine whether the sanctions prescribed under the current rules are still commensurate to the charge itself and its effects on service. Thus, to enable the Court to properly decide, an extensive review of the history of how habitual tardiness has been classified and punished must be undertaken. The applicable rules and penalties for administrative cases involving habitual tardiness prior to the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court The Court crafted two separate rules to govern administrative disciplinary cases, namely: (a) Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which then only covered justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals, and judges of the lower courts; [16] and (b) the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel [17] (CCCP), which covered all other officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary who are not justices or judges of said courts. [18] Even prior to the issuance of the CCCPwhich categorically incorporated the Civil Service rules into itselfthe Court had already been applying the Civil Service rules in disciplining Judiciary employees. Justices of appellate courts and the Sandiganbayan and judges For justices of appellate courts and the Sandiganbayan and judges, habitual tardiness is classified and punished as a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, viz.: SECTION 7. Classification of charges . Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light. . . . . SECTION 9. Less Serious Charges . Less serious charges include: Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case; Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness ; U