The Supreme Court has amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court to ensure that penalties imposed on judiciary personnel for habitual tardiness are proportionate to the actual impact of their offense.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa dated May 20, 2025, the Court En Banc approved revisions to Rule 140, creating a new classification for “ordinary habitual tardiness” under light charges when it does not disrupt office functions.
It also redefines the previous “less serious charge” of habitual absenteeism and/or tardiness into “habitual tardiness causing prejudice to the operations of the office and/or habitual absenteeism.”
Previously, habitual tardiness was automatically treated as a less serious charge, often resulting in heavy penalties such as long suspensions without pay or hefty fines, regardless of frequency or actual disruption.
This policy came under scrutiny in the 2024 case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Villavicencio-Olan, where sanctions—including suspension of benefits—were found to disproportionately affect employees with lower salary grades.
With the latest amendment, judiciary personnel may now face either a light charge for ordinary habitual tardiness that does not prejudice office operations, or a less serious charge if their lateness disrupts workflow.
For light charges, penalties may include a fine ranging from ₱1,000 to ₱35,000, censure, or reprimand. If the sanction is limited to censure or reprimand, the employee remains entitled to receive benefits, consistent with the Court’s earlier ruling in Villavicencio-Olan.
The Court clarified that the revisions should not be seen as a lenient stance on tardiness. Instead, the changes aim to tailor disciplinary measures to the gravity of the offense while preventing excessive punishment.
“The amendments are meant to ensure that disciplinary actions are based on the actual circumstances and impact of each case,” the decision stated.