Threshold of habituality

This is a case which should be the concern of all employees whether in public service or private employment. While the employees involved here are in the government, it may well apply to those in the private sector which has no fixed guidelines of its own, as it defines the meaning of habitual tardiness and the unjustifiable excuses for its commission. The case is about five employees in the judiciary assigned in various offices, namely, Ludy, Betty Patsy, Lani and Mando.

In the past year, Ludy had been tardy 10 times for the month of March and 11 times in May. She claims she tried her best to avoid being tardy but could not, as she was taking care of her 92 year old blind mother. Betty incurred tardiness in the months of February (10 times), April (14 times), May (20 times) and June (12 times). Betty is a single parent with five children who cannot afford any househelp. So before she leaves for work, she has to cook food for the whole day consumption, prepares the childrens’ baon and bathes the youngest, still a toddler, then leaves her under the care of a kind neighbor. Mando was late for work 11 times each for the months of February and March and 10 times in April because he cannot leave his old and weak mother alone in their house and has to wait for his sister to arrive. Patsy is also a single parent who takes care of her children especially the youngest who is undergoing speech therapy. She has been late 10 times for the month of April and 12 times for the month of May but she usually leaves the office after five o’clock to compensate for her tardiness. Lani admits that she was tardy in February (13 times), April (11 times) and June (10 times) because of her pregnancy for which she was advised by her doctor to avoid stress until the baby is fully developed just like in her first and second pregnancies.

All of them prayed for exemption from the imposition of the penalty recommended by their superior viz; Two months suspension for Ludy for committing habitual tardiness three times already; severe reprimand for Betty and Mando who had been found to be habitually tardy twice and stern warning on Patsy and Lani, it being their first offense.They appealed for leniency and humanitarian consideration.

Could they be excused?

No.

An employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes,ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year.The penalties for habitual tardiness are; reprimand for first offense, suspension for 1 to 30 days for second offense and dismissal for the third offense (Civil Service Commission Circular No.43 series of 1991 and No.19 series of 1999.)

There is no question that the employees concerned were habitually tardy.Moral obligations, humanitarian considerations, performance of household chores and pregnancy are not sufficient reasons to exempt an employee from being habitually tardy. These reasons are not sufficient to justify exemption from the imposition of the penalty although these may be considered to mitigate liability.By their habitual tardiness which prejudiced public service, the subject employees have failed to live up to the standards of conduct set by the Court.

It is not correct to say that an employee who incurs less than 10 tardiness a month for two consecutive months in a semester has not committed tardiness. The ten times requirement is only for the purpose of qualifying the tardiness as habitual which merits a mor severe 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.Tardiness, even if not habitual,still causes inefficiency and is still prejudicial to public service.

The recommendation of their superior is therefore proper as it already takes into account the humanitarian plea of the employees, for more understanding and compassion that mitigate their liability to mere suspension, reprimand and warning (In re Habitual Tardiness First Semester 2002 A.M. No. 2002-15-SC, November 15, 2002).

* * *

E-mail us at: [email protected]