Printer Friendly

Dead court worker fined for being 'habitually tardy'.

A court employee slapped with an administrative complaint for 'habitual tardiness' has been ordered fined by the Supreme Court although he had already died.

In its five-page decision, the High Court in the administrative case against the late Rodrigo P. Jornacion, a process server at the Branch 152, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, said 'considering...that the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed in view of Jornacion's untimely demise, as well as the other circumstances of the case, the penalty of fine equivalent to his salary for one month is imposed upon him,'

The fine is to be deducted from whatever monetary benefits he may be entitled to under the law, the court ordered.

'As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible. By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust,' the tribunal said.

Jornacion had been habitually tardy under service rules for having been late for the three quarters of 2017.

In the first quarter of 2017, he had been late more than 10 times for each of the three consecutive months of January, February and March. In the second quarter, he had been late more than 10 times for the two consecutive months of April and May.

In the last quarter of the same year, Jornacion incurred tardiness more than 10 times for the consecutive months of October, November and December.

Habitual tardiness is classified as a light offense under Section 50, paragraph F (4), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) and is punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one to 30 days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense.

The Court also noted that Section 50, paragraph B (6) of the 2017 RACCS also classifies habitual tardiness as a grave offense if reporting late for duty has prejudiced the operations in the office.

Jornacion failed to justify his infractions, the court said.

COPYRIGHT 2019 Knowledge Bylanes
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Business Mirror (Makati City, Philippines)
Date:Jun 16, 2019
Words:401
Previous Article:Science, math teachers urged to join innovation contest.
Next Article:Secret happy places for summer.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters