This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-07-06 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| There is no question that respondent employees violated the rule on tardiness. Except for Atty. Amatong, all of the respondents failed to provide an explanation that could be deemed satisfactory. The Court has repeatedly held that moral obligations, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.[3] | |||||