Case Digest: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ATTY. MARTA T. CUNANAN

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ATTY. MARTA T. CUNANAN

484 SCRA 234 (2006)

Moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns, while mitigating, do not suffice to excuse habitual tardiness.

Respondent Atty. Marta T. Cunanan, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, is administratively charged by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for habitual tardiness. In the report, Cunanan had incurred tardiness for 12 times in September 2004 and 12 times in October 2004.

She gave the following explanation for the alleged tardiness: In September and October 2004, she was suffering from respiratory ailment, aggravated by severe attacks of chronic migraine and hyperacidity which were accompanied with dizziness, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleepless nights and body weakness and discomfort. Aside from taking the prescribed medication, her doctor had advised her to rest. Despite her physical condition, she still reported for work so as not to hamper the smooth flow of cases pending before the court. She added that it takes two to three hours from her residence for her to reach the court and while she has to rise very early in the morning and report for work to avoid the rush hour, her physical condition in September and October 2004 slowed down her mobility, hence, the tardiness. She asked that she be accorded with kindness and understanding.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Marta T. Cunanan should be administratively charged by the office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for habitual tardiness

HELD:

Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998 provides that an employee is 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.

Cunanan admittedly committed tardiness. That her ailments had rendered her physically weak does not, however, exculpate her from compliance with the rules on punctuality and observance of official time. Moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems and health, domestic and financial concerns, while mitigating, do not suffice to excuse habitual tardiness.

That court officials and employees must strictly observe official time can never be overemphasized. By reason of the nature and functions of their office, they 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 thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government and ultimately the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary.