MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) has amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court to introduce fairer penalties for habitual tardiness among Judiciary personnel, ensuring sanctions are proportionate to the impact of the offense.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC En Banc approved revisions that include a new light charge for ordinary habitual tardiness not causing prejudice to office operations. Meanwhile, habitual tardiness that disrupts office functions has been redefined as a less serious charge, alongside habitual absenteeism.

Previously, habitual tardiness was automatically treated as a less serious charge, which often carried heavy penalties such as long suspensions without pay or steep fines, regardless of frequency or impact. The issue came to light in the 2024 case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Villaviciencio-Olan, which imposed penalties that disproportionately affected employees with lower salary grades.

Under the new framework, penalties for light charges may include a fine of ₱1,000 to ₱35,000, censure, or reprimand. Employees penalized only with censure or reprimand remain entitled to benefits, consistent with the SC’s ruling in Villavicencio-Olan.

The Court said the amendments do not signal leniency toward tardiness but instead aim to calibrate disciplinary actions according to the gravity of the offense. “By distinguishing between ordinary and prejudicial tardiness, disciplinary actions are based on actual circumstances and impact,” the SC said.