03/10/2025
The (SC) has revised Rule 140 of the Rules of Court to introduce fairer penalties for habitual tardiness among Judiciary personnel, ensuring that sanctions are proportionate to the actual impact of the offense.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC En Banc approved amendments to Rule 140, including adding a new offense under light charges for ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to the operations of the office.
The amendment also redefines the previous less serious charge of habitual absenteeism and/or tardiness to now read as habitual tardiness causing prejudice to the operations of the office and/or habitual absenteeism.
Under the latest amendment, Judiciary personnel may now be held liable for either a light charge for ordinary habitual tardiness that does not disrupt office functions or a less serious charge of habitual tardiness if it does, depending on the circumstances.
Penalties for light charges may include: (a) a fine ranging from PHP 1,000.00 to PHP 35,000.00; (b) censure; or (c) reprimand.
“Censure” refers to a stern expression of blame, while “reprimand” is a strong or formal warning.
If the penalty is limited to censure or reprimand, the employee may still be entitled to receive benefits. This is in line with the SC’s ruling in the 2024 case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Villavicencio-Olan, which significantly increased the consequences for employees, including suspension of benefits, disproportionately affecting employees with lower salary grades.
By distinguishing between ordinary and prejudicial tardiness, the SC aims to ensure that disciplinary actions are based on the actual circumstances and impact of each case.
Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152628.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152502.
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.
