Employees’ Leave Division v. Mataro, A.M. No. P-24-192 (May 20, 2025)

Employees’ Leave Division v. Mataro

A.M. No. P-24-192, May 20, 2025
EN BANC
Caguioa, J.

DOCTRINE:

The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its administrative supervision, may amend Rule 140 of the Rules of Court to introduce gradations in the offense of habitual tardiness among Judiciary personnel—distinguishing between “Habitual tardiness causing prejudice to the operations of the office” (Less Serious Charge) and “Ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to the operations of the office” (Light Charge)—to ensure penalties are reasonable and commensurate to the charge.

FACTS:

The administrative matter originated from a report by the Employees’ Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), detailing that Javeelyn L. Mataro, a Court Stenographer III, incurred tardiness 10 times in September 2023 and 12 times in October 2023. This conduct falls squarely under the definition of “habitual tardiness” under Civil Service rules, which were previously applied by the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB). The JIB and the JIB’s Executive Director recommended finding Mataro guilty of habitual tardiness and imposing a fine of PHP 17,501.00 or PHP 18,000.00, respectively, considering her first offense status.

In her verified comment, Mataro expressed her sincere apology and explained that her tardiness coincided with her first pregnancy, during which she experienced difficulty waking up, trouble sleeping, and persistent nausea and vomiting. She acknowledged that her physical condition did not excuse her administrative liability but requested that the mitigating circumstance of “first offense” be considered.

ISSUE(S):

1. Was respondent Javeelyn L. Mataro guilty of habitual tardiness based on the incurred tardiness of 10 times in September 2023 and 12 times in October 2023?

2. Does the current Judiciary disciplinary framework under Rule 140 allow for penalties commensurate to the offense of habitual tardiness when committed by non-judicial personnel and no prejudice to office operations is established?

3. Should the application of the guidelines on withholding Employee Imperatives Assistance (EIA) and Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) under the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) be suspended?

RULING:

1. Was respondent Javeelyn L. Mataro guilty of habitual tardiness based on the incurred tardiness of 10 times in September 2023 and 12 times in October 2023?

YES. To recall, respondent was tardy from work 10 times in September 2023 and 12 times in October 2023. Respondent was pregnant when these transgressions were made. Her physical and health conditions, while not exculpatory, sufficiently explained her tardiness.

Respondent readily admitted that she ‘failed to undertake [the] obligation to report on time.’ Moreover, the Court favorably observes that respondent referred to her pregnancy by way of an explanation, rather than an excuse. She showed full understanding of the importance of punctuality in government service when she recognized that ‘court officials and employees are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time’ regardless of ‘personal struggles or physical condition.’

Considering these relevant factors, the Court deems it proper to hold respondent guilty of ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to the operations of the office and imposes the penalty of reprimand for such light charge.

2. Does the current Judiciary disciplinary framework under Rule 140 allow for penalties commensurate to the offense of habitual tardiness when committed by non-judicial personnel and no prejudice to office operations is established?

NO. As discussed above, the recent amendments to Rule 140 had the unintended and unfortunate effect of completely eliminating the distinction in expectations between appellate and Sandiganbayan justices and judges and all other Judiciary officials, employees, and personnel. This can no longer be countenanced because by nature, a ‘higher level of decorum’ is indeed expected from judges and justices.

The current narrow range of penalties in Rule 140, as amended, prevents the Court from examining and considering the circumstances of its erring employees and meting commensurate sanctions for the charge of habitual tardiness. Indeed, the limited nature of such range of penalties has the unintended effect of stifling the Court’s judicial discretion in its administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel.

Following the classification in the 2017 RACCS, the Court hereby amends Rule 140 to:

(1) Add a new offense under light charges for ‘Ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to the operations of the office’ under Rule 140, as amended; and

(2) Revise the less serious charge of ‘Habitual Absenteeism and/or Tardiness’ to ‘Habitual tardiness causing prejudice to the operations of the office and/or Habitual absenteeism’.

3. Should the application of the guidelines on withholding Employee Imperatives Assistance (EIA) and Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) under the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) be suspended?

YES. In full recognition of the unintended effects herein discussed causing serious prejudice to Judiciary employees with lower salary grades, the Court hereby suspends the application in future cases of the guidelines on withholding of the EIA and COLA under the JDF. ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to:

…..

(2) SUSPEND the application of the guidelines on withholding of Employee Imperatives Assistance and Cost of Living Allowance under the Judiciary Development Fund[.]