Any employee shall be 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. MC NO. 23, s. 1998-Civil Service Commission.

Punctuality is an essential aspect of professionalism, and habitual tardiness is a significant concern in any organization, including the judiciary. The Civil Service Commission’s MC No. 23, s. 1998 specifies that an employee who is late ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months during the year is considered habitually tardy.

In the judiciary, the importance of punctuality is emphasized by the Supreme Court, which has taken disciplinary action against some administrative employees for their habitual tardiness. The Supreme Court emphasizes that public office is a public trust, and it is imperative for court officials and employees to strictly follow official hours to preserve the public’s esteem for the justice system.

The Court’s high standards of ethics and morality reflect the emphasis placed on the image of the courts of justice. All those involved in dispensing justice have a responsibility to uphold the courts’ good name and standing as true temples of justice.

In the case of the concerned employees who were habitually tardy, their justifications for their tardiness were deemed unacceptable. The nature and duties of their job require court officials and employees to be exemplars of the faithful observance of the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. It is their responsibility to be accountable to the people they serve, and they must discharge their duties with the utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

It is important to note that the justifications for absences and tardiness, such as illness, moral obligations to family and relatives, household chores, traffic, and health or physical conditions, are not sufficient and may only mitigate liability.

In conclusion, habitual tardiness is not acceptable in any organization, especially in the judiciary, where the efficient use of time is necessary to serve the public effectively. Court officials and employees must strictly adhere to official hours to maintain the integrity and reputation of the courts of justice. Justifications for absences and tardiness must be valid and acceptable, and they may only mitigate liability. The purpose of this article is to remind all court officials and employees of their duty and obligation to serve the public with the highest level of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

 

Education and the Law 
Atty. Emerson T. Ceria 
School Principal III