The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the online action officers and not necessarily those of the Office for Legal Affairs or the Commission on CSC laws, rules and regulations. Also, be reminded that the views of the action officer is a mere advice that does not bind the office.

When posting, you agree that the administrator has the right to delete your posts or ban your account without prior warning in case of non-observance of any of the guidelines.
Guidelines to clients:

1. Please browse the frequently asked questions first to see if there are already the same or related questions that were asked on your query/ies;
2. Official response to issues shall be provided by the concerned office of the Commission, not through this forum;
3. Requests for the status of the case is not allowed in this forum;
4. Questions regarding the scheduled CSC examination will be deleted;
5. This forum is categorized according to subject matter. Please post your queries in appropriate category;
6. Post a descriptive topic name. Give a short summary of your problem/s;
7. No spam in this forum. Your posts will be deleted and your account will be banned without prior warning;
8. Refrain from posting pictures and offensive words or links. Violation of this rule shall give the administrator the right to delete your posts and ban your account without prior warning;
9. Please report to administrators if you see a user violating any of this guidelines;
10. Be respectful to the administrators and users; and
11. Please avoid text-message style substitution of words like “r” for “are” and “u” for “you”. If your message is difficult to understand the administrator shall inform you to rewrite your message.

Question Late Submission of DTR

5 years 5 months ago #1685 by Mick Mars
Mick Mars created the topic: Late Submission of DTR
Good afternoon.
I would like to ask about certain circumstances or related issuance that an employee may face in he/she delays the submission of his/her DTR for salary. Thanks. Since the others are affected of the delay.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

5 years 4 months ago #1689 by Action Officer 15
Action Officer 15 replied the topic: Late Submission of DTR

This refers to your query on the consequences of delayed submission of Daily Time Record (DTR) by an employee.

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render opinions or rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issues which are not fully represented or substantiated as in this case.

Nonetheless, we wish to invite your attention to the following laws and jurisprudence, which may be relevant in your case:

1. Section 50 (F) (3), Rule 10 (Administrative Offenses and Penalties)

“F. The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense:

“(3)Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations;”

2. A.M. No. 2005-21-SC (Re: Failure of Various Employees to Register their time of Arrival and Departure from Office in the Chronolog Machine), which may be considered analogous to the case on hand, the Supreme Court held:

“Considering the various justifications proffered by respondent employees for failure to register their time of arrival and departure in the CTRM, the Court finds no error in the recommendation of the OAS finding them guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, more specifically Administrative Circular No. 36-2001. As stated by the OAS, "rules and regulations are [issued] to attain harmony, smooth operation, maximize efficiency and productivity, with the ultimate objective of realizing the functions of particular offices and agencies of the government." Thus, any breach of such rules and regulations cannot be countenanced.”

3. Section 50 (D) (1), Rule 10 (Administrative Offenses and Penalties)

“1. Simple Neglect of Duty.”
4. Salumbides vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 180917 dated April 23, 2010, where the Supreme Court held:

“Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. In this regard, the Court finds Parungao, as HRMO, guilty of simple neglect of duty. Given her duties under the CSC Accreditation Program, she should have been aware of the reportorial requirements, and of the fact that it is the CSC which has authority over appointments, and not the DBM. Had she given the proper attention to her responsibility as HRMO, the first set of appointment papers would never have been issued, thereby avoiding the present predicament altogether.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum