Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 2007-19-SC : March 18, 2008] DENNIS B. DELOS SANTOS V. GEORGIO L. ALVAREZ (SLEEPING WHILE ON DUTY), AND GEORGIO L. ALVAREZ V. DENNIS B. DELOS SANTOS (ABANDONMENT OF POST) :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 18, 2008

A.M. No. 2007-19-SC (Dennis B. Delos Santos v. Georgio L. Alvarez (Sleeping while on Duty), and Georgio L. Alvarez v. Dennis B. Delos Santos (Abandonment of Post).�This administrative matter stemmed from an Incident Report^[1] dated 3 September 2007 filed by Dennis Delos Santos, a casual Watchman II, addressed to Mr. Danilo C. Pablo, Chief of the Security Division, reporting the alleged sleeping while on duty of Georgio Alvarez, Security Officer I, Security Division.

Delos Santos alleged that on 23 August 2007 at around 3:14 a.m., while he was on night-shift duty, he saw Alvarez, the Shift-in-charge, sleeping inside the Security Office located at the Supreme Court Centennial Building. Delos Santos attached to his report two (2) pictures^[2] of Alvarez allegedly taken by him using his cellular phone showing Alvarez to be asleep.

Delos Santos further averred that Alvarez had been habitually sleeping while on duty almost every night in the month of August 2007. According to him, this was also witnessed by other security guards. Delos Santos averred that Alvarez was not setting a good example to his subordinates. He also alleged that Alvarez was harassing the casual security guards, threatening them and saying, ''Yayariin ko kayong mga casual, lalo 'yang dikit nang dikit kay Hepe. Hindi kayo uubra sa akin, pag.nahuli ko kayong tulog nang tulog, idederekta ko sa itaas, copy furnish na lang si Chief. "^[3]

Delos Santos emphasized that he did not abandon his post when he took Alvarez's pictures. He explained that he only chanced upon Alvarez while he was about to get hot water for his coffee from the Security Office. He stated that whenever he would do this or attend to his other personal needs, which would require him to leave his post for a while, he would usually ask the guard on duty at the Taft exit gate to monitor his area for the few minutes that he would be gone^[4]

In his Comment,^[5] Alvarez argued that the pictures submitted by Delos Santos were not enough proof that he was actually sleeping on that particular incident. He maintained that a photograph could be deceiving and capable of many interpretations. He stated that Delos Santos failed to submit any proof to validate his claim that the two pictures were actually taken by him at the aforesaid date and time. Alvarez further argued that even assuming the pictures were indeed taken under said circumstances, he insisted that he was not asleep, as what could be perceived from there. He explained that after conducting a roving inspection of his area and after having a cup of coffee, he rested his aching back on the reclining chair and closed his then tired and watery eyes. He believed that this was his exact position when Delos Santos took the pictures. He averred that he was fully aware of what was happening in his surroundings at that time because resting is entirely different from sleeping. He pointed out that Delos Santos's failure to provide several shots of his alleged sleeping only proves that he was not in fact sleeping. Had the contrary been the case, he stated he could not have easily noticed Delos Santos. He surmised that if not for personal vengeance, Delos Santos must have been used by some people to harass him. He stated that on 15 August 2007, he himself caught Delos Santos sleeping, which incident he claimed was entered in the security logbook. He allegedly censured and warned him that should he ever catch him sleeping again, Alvarez would directly report the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

By justifying that in no way was he negligent in the performance of his duties, Alvarez submitted citations given to him in recognition of his outstanding service as a security guard, and records of his very satisfactory performance ratings.

In his Reply^[6], Delos Santos stood firm on his earlier claims. He submitted a sworn statement of Moises Garcia, another casual security guard who also allegedly witnessed the incident in question. He also submitted another picture of Alvarez allegedly taken at around 1:57 a.m. on the alleged date. However, unlike the other pictures, the face of the man in this picture was covered by a ball cap which makes it hard to establish his identity.

Alvarez subsequently filed a counter-complaint^[7] on 15 October 2007 against Delos Santos abandonment of post. He alleged that on the date and time in question, Delos Santos left his post without securing Alvarez's permission and went to the Security Office, not on official task but to actually spy on him, in clear violation of the Detail Instructions issued by Mr. Pablo, particularly Number 4 thereof which Provides that no guard shall leave his post without clearance from the shift-in-charge.

Delos Santos thereafter filed his Comment^[8] on the counter-complaint, claiming that he dip not abandon his post, because during the said incident, he requested another guard to monitor his area for the few minutes that he got hot water from the Security Office.

Meanwhile, Delos Santos no longer reported for work starting December 2007. He submitted a resignation letter effective 20 December 2007. Without taking action on his letter, the OCA twice caused the service on him of the directive to submit his Rejoinder to the counter-complaint against him, but he could no longer be located.

The OCA then informed Alvarez of this circumstance, and of the fact that the complaint and counter-complaint shall be evaluated on the basis of available records, but the OCA received no response from him.

In both cases, the main issue to be resolved is whether Alvarez and Delos Santos could be held liable for the charges they filed against each other.

In its Memorandum^[9] dated 4 May 2008, the OCA made the following recommendations, to wit:

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that:

1. after having been fbund guilty of sleeping while on duty which constitutes Simple Neglect of Duty, taking into consideration mitigating circumstances and humanitarian considerations, Mr. Georgio L. Alvarez be SEVERELY PREPRIMANDED; and
   
   
2. the counter-complaint for abandonment of post against Mr. Dennis B. Delos Santos, be dismissed for lack of merit
   

The findings and recommendations of the OCA are concise enough to allow reproduction hereunder, thus:

Given all the arguments and discussions proffered by the two, it is importune that Mr. Alvarez who claimed to be not asleep and allegedly was fully aware of what was happening in his surrounding (sic) at the time as not able to spot Mr. Delos Santos while he took his pictures. This Office agrees with Mr. Alvarez that resting is entirely different from sleeping. It also agrees with him that a picture is capable If many interpretations but only when it is required by the situation. In the case of the pictures submitted by Mr. Delos Santos, the pictures being plain on its face showed that he was sleeping on that particular incident. To conclude otherwise is like impinging one's ability to discern on what his eyes can clearly perceive.

On the contrary, if credence is to be given to the claim of Mr. Alvarez that he was aware of what was transpiring, how come he did not move nor react t to show Mr. Delos Santos that he was not sleeping. The answer becomes obvious, as he was not even aware of his presence. His averment that although his eyes were closed, and thus, awake and conscious of the circumstances around him, is unfortunately depicted on the photos which clearly speak for themselves. Nothing could well explain his position of having closed eyes and his back, comfortably reclining on a chair, than a very clear case of sleeping while on duty if not in a deep slumber. The situation was found by Mr. Delos Santos is without a doubt depicted in the pictures sufficient to prove the allegation. Hence, the pictures substantially established the case against him.

Regarding the claim that Mr. Delos Santos was not able to prove that the pictures were taken by him (Mr. Delos Santos) on the alleged date and time, is deemed admitted when he himself affirmed the circumstances which led him to be in that position. By narrating what happened on the aforesaid date and time, and by explaining why he was found thereat and in such position, Mr. Alvarez only confirmed the allegation of Mr. Delos Santos.

x x x

With respect to Mr. Alvarez's counter-charge, this Office deemed the same as a mere afterthought, the same being solely anchored on the averment that Mr. Delos Santos abandoned his post when he took Mr. Alvarez pictures. This Office believes the counter-charge would not have reached this Office if the charge of the (sic) sleeping on duty was not filed by Mr. Delos Santos. The only thing that triggered Mr. Alvarez's action of filing his counter-complaint was the complaint against him by Mr. Alvarez (sic). Hence, the counter-complaint lacks merit.

On the allegation that Mr. Delos Santos merely wanted to get even with him because he first caught Mr. Delos Santos sleeping on his post deserves scant consideration. Be it said that as the supervisor who caught Mr. Delos Santos, Mr. Alvarez chose to merely rebuke him right after the alleged incident and accordingly warned him. He did not report him anymore to the Chief of the Security Division. It therefore goes that (sic) Mr. Delos Santos had already been meted the corresponding sanction for his infraction based on the discretion of Mr. Alvarez being his supervisor at that particular time. Besides, it was his own choosing that the matter was not brought to this Office.

Under par. 5.3 of the Security Guidelines for the Supreme Court, it is provided that supervising security guard will collate all the reports of his shift and submit it to the Chief of Security. However, it appears that Mr. Alvarez did not make such a report to the Chief of the security for the latter's appropriate action. It only shows therefore that had Mr. Delos Santos not reported Mr. Alvarez's sleeping, the latter would not have thought of filing a counter-complaint case against Mr. Delos Santos.

Mr. Alvarez claimed that Mr. Delos Santos left his post without seeking his (Mr. Alvarez) permission considering that he was the shift-in-charge at that time. There is no need to belabor on this fact as the reason why the same could not have been possible was that he could have already been sleeping inside the Security Office.

In this sense, Mr. Alvarez failed to be very watchful on the time he was caught sleeping by Mr. Delos Santos. Logically, if indeed Mr. Delos Santos abandoned his post without authority and, assuming was able to pass or loiter at the Security Office where Mr. Alvarez was, the obvious truth was, Mr. Alvarez failed to have knowledge thereof because he was then asleep.

x x x �^[10]

All security guards are mandated to be very alert and watchful especially at night and not to allow anyone to pass or loiter without proper authority.^[11] Alvarez's act of sleeping while on duty is equivalent to sleeping during office hours which should have been fully devoted to the discharge of his functions. Significantly, Supreme Court Administrative (Circular No. 5 dated 4 October 1988, requires that the entire time of Judicial officials and employees must be devoted to government service.^[12] For his failure to discharge fully his duty at the time he slept, he as deemed to have committed neglect of duty. Although not gross in character considering that no other untoward incidents or loss to government properties were recorded at that time, the fact remains that he failed to give proper attention to his required task, that is to be vigilant at all times during his tour of duty.

Simple neglect of duty signifies disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. The Court cannot countenance neglect of duty, for even simple neglect of duty lessens the people's confidence in the judiciary, anp ultimately, in the administration of justice.^[13]

Under the Section 52 (B), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable with suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. However, mitigating circumstances exist in this case that warrant the tampering of the imposable penalty. Alvarez's length of service to the Court which is more than fifteen (15) years, his very satisfactory performance in his work, the commendations and/or recognition given to him for having rendered outstanding service at a given time, plus the fact that this is his first offense all mitigate his liability. In addition the fact that the incident happened at 3:14 a.m. coupled with the fact that Alvarez then had a backache and tired eyes which prompted him to take a rest should be considered in his favor for humanitarian reasons. We thus deem appropriate the penalty of reprimand.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Georgio L. Alvarez, Security Officer I, Security Division is hereby SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for sleeping Wile on duty. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

The counter-complaint against Dennis B. Delos Santos, Casual Watchman II, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Ynares-Santiago, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 27-29.

^[2] Id. at 80

^[3] Id. at.

^[4] Id. at 27-28.

^[5] Id. at 64-67.

^[6] Id. at 42-44.

^[7] Id. at 50-52.

^[8] Id. at 23-26.

^[9] Id. at 1-7.

^[10] Id. at 4-5

^[11] No. 11, Section 7, General Orders, 1194 Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 5487, as amended, governing the organization and operation of private security agencies and company security forces throughout the Philippines.

^[12] Diamante v. Alambra, A.M. No. P-99-1289, 21 September 2001, 365 SCRA 531 .

^[13] Reyes v. Pablico, A.M. No. P-0d2109, 27 November 2006, 508 SCRA 146.