Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. SB-07-15-P : November 10, 2008] MANUEL M. TORIO, SUPERVISING JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, SANDIGANBAYAN V. PEP1TO B. GUILLEN AND DANILO B. GALLARON, [1] BOTH REPRODUCTION MACHINE OPERATOR II, SANDIGANBAYAN:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 November 2008:

A.M. No. SB-07-15-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-15-SB-P] -MANUEL M. TORIO, Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, Security and Sheriff Services, Sandiganbayan v. PEP1TO B. GUILLEN and DANILO B. GALLARON,^[1] both Reproduction Machine Operator II, Sandiganbayan.

By Second Indorsement dated September 13, 2006,^[2] then Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and now Associate Justice of this Court, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) the September 7, 2006 Complaint-Affidavit^[3] of Manuel M. Torio (complainant), Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, Security and Sheriff Services of the Sandiganbayan, charging Pepito B. Guillen (Guillen), Reproduction Machine Operator II, with Grave Misconduct, Being Notoriously Undesirable, Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Discourtesy in the course of Official Duties and Insubordination, and the September 4, 2006 Memorandum of Security Officer I Darwin Trinidad for Edgardo A. Urieta,^[4] Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security and Sheriff Sendees of the Sandiganbayan.

By complainant's allegation, the facts that gave rise to the filing of his Complaint-Affidavit are as follows:

x x x x

11.    The event subject of this complaint transpired on September 1, 2006, a Friday.

12.    At around 3:00 P.M., I was at my table because at that time the Sheriffs Office had a detainee, a Municipal Mayor from Souther[n] Luzon who voluntarily surrendered and posted his bail.

13.    Suddenly,  [respondent]  appeared coming from  the Office of the Executive Clerk of Court TV, looking drunk and shouting "ANO SINO BA ANG MGA SIGA DITO?! LABAS ANG MATAPANG!" In addition, he was doing nasty things in front of several employees and visitors inside the Sheriffs Office. Concerned about the order inside the Sheriffs Office, I asked Mr. Guillen to leave the Sheriffs Office and to calm down. But Mr. Guillen insisted to stay. He even gripped and wrestle my palm and hand. Then, he went beside me (I was sitting then), he put his hands around my neck and had me headlocked. I told him not to do it because there were visitors inside. But he persisted on shouting.

14.    To avoid further trouble, I asked him to get out of the office, but the[n]
be challenged me to a fist fight which I just ignored. Instead[,] I asked the security personnel to take charge of the situation and pacify Mr.Guillen. He went to the other room (Process Servers Room), where he continued his shouting spree.

15.    Then, at around 3:25, Mr. Guillen caused further commotion at the lobby of the Ground Floor, near the Sheriffs Office.

16.    Mr. Guillen was shouting invectives such as: "Putang inang Manny yan, sobra nayan;  "Putang ina mo Manny, lumabas ka diyan!"Magsuntukan tayo dito!"

17.    While the security personnel were pacifying Mr. Guillen, he even replied on loud voice: "Bakit takot ha kayo kay Manny?!" Pabayaan niyo ako! Huwag niyo akong hawakan!" (Uppercasing, emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)

x x x x^[5]

Complainant's allegations were corroborated by Darwin Trinidad in his aforementioned Memorandum, viz:

. . . [O]n September 1, 2006 at 1525H, an intercom call was received by SGIII Armando S. Astor (Shift in Charge)[,] [regarding a commotion that transpired at the lobby of this Court, near the sheriffs office.

Upon learning about the abovementioned subject, the undersigned together with Several Security Personnel rushed to the scene. There we saw Mr. Pepito Guillen (Xerox Machine Operator) in an intoxicated (Drunk) look shouting "PUTANGINANG MANNY YAN SOBRA NA YAN!" and "PUTANGINA MO MANNY LUMABAS KA DYAN! MAGSUNTUKAN TAYO DITO!" his spiteful words were referring to Mr. Manuel M. Torio (Supervising JSO of the Security & Sheriff Services). When we had the chance to [t]alk to Mr. Guillen, we told him to stop shouting to prevent him from further worsening the situation. But Mr. Guillen was defiant and even replied on high tone "BAKIT TAKOT BA KAYO KAY MANNY?! PABAYAN N'YO AKO! WAG N'YO AKONG HAWAKAN!" It was further learned that Mr. Guillen went inside the office of the Executive Clerk of Court IV doing unpleasant things. Moreover the unscrupulous Mr. Guillen went out of the lobby and started shouting "SINO ANG SIGA DITO?! LUMABAS ANG SIGA!" These actuations seem to challenge anyone who can stand before him to engage in a fight.

When the situation was already pacified, the undersigned made an inquiry with Mr. Torio to clarify the matter. Mr. Torio narrated that at about 1520H, Mr. Guillen entered the Sheriffs Office obviously drunk shouting unpleasant words such as "ANO SINO BA ANG SIGA DITO?! LABAS ANG MATAPANG!" and did nasty things infont of several employees and visitors inside the office. Please take note that on that day a town Mayor was present inside the Sheriffs Office (Under Custody). Concerned about the order inside their office Mr. Torio asked Mr. Guillen to leave their office and calm down, because the actions of Mr. Guillen brought humiliation to the Sandiganbayan not only to employees but to the Sandiganbayan as a whole. But Mr. Guillen insisted to stay, to avoid further trouble Mr. Torio again asked Mr. Guillen to get out of (he office, but the latter challenged him to a fistfight, which Mr. Torio just ignored instead he asked the Security Personnel to take charge of the situation and pacify Mr. Guillen.

To further clarify the matter, this investigator made an interview with Mr. Guillen's Immediate Supervisor Mrs. CeSia V. Guevara. When asked about where Mr. Guillen went before the commotion. Mrs. Guevarra narrated that she was also looking for Mr. Guillen since 10 AM, but the latter was nowhere to be found. It was found out that Mr. Guillen went to a drinking spree with Mr, panilo Gallaron (Clerk III assigned at the Supply Section) at the latter's place.

Sir, please be advised that Mr. Guillen and Mr. Gallaron went out of the Sandiganbayan Premises during office hours without securing a permit from their Supervisors. Moreover intoxication during office hours is a violation of the code of conduct for government employees. Furthermore his actions were further aggravated by challenging his co-employees to engage in a fistfight in front of a considerable number of employees during office hour.^[6] (Uppercasing in the original, emphasis and underscoring supplied)

By two separate Indorsements both dated October 4, 2006,^[7]then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock required Guillen and Clerk III Danilo Gallaron (Gallaron) to file their respective Comments within ten days.

In his November 8, 2006 Affidavit,^[8] Guillen acknowledged his fault with the promise that he would not do it again.

2. To date, I am still grieving, totally lost, mentally tortured, practically isolated and remorseful as to why did I commit the events mentioned in Mr. Tone's complaint-affidavit. While I may say that the declarations in his affidavit are a little bit embellished, I will humbl[y]. heartfully apology[e]tic, further not argue and sincerely accept them as my deeds and fault. With all sincerity, because of our long years of working together in the Sandiganbayan, our closeness as gullible friends might have perhaps swayed me to approach him inside his office and did some verbal jokes without knowing that I had already surpassed the proper office decorum as a result of which, I had uttered some undesirable statements against him and further did some office damaging actions. Regrettably, it was then too late for me to realize that all I have done were not already jokes but all were out of proportion and condemnable actions that a public servant, especially a judiciary employee like me, must have avoided. I feel sorry that in my twenty six (26) years of work here in Sandiganbayan, for the first time, I did these unpleasant things detrimental to public service;
   
   
3. With due respect, I plead to be blameworthy and pray that I be spared to
   be sanctioned and promise that the unpleasant actions that I did on that fateful day will never be repeated again. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In his Comment dated October 26, 2006,^[9] Gallaron denied any personal knowledge of the commotion mentioned in the Complaint-Affidavit and claimed having learned about it only a week after the incident. He alleged that at around 10:00 A.M. of September 1, 2006, on receiving an emergency call about his sick child, he left for home at 11:00 A.M. before which he tried to locate his immediate supervisor to ask permission to leave but he could not find her; and he returned for work before 2:00 P.M.

During the pendency of the complaint or on February 21, 2007, complainant executed an Affidavit of Desistance^[10] in favor of Guillen, manifesting that he was no longer interested to continue with the case.

In its April 11, 2007 Report,^[11] the OCA came up with the following evaluation:

. . . Respondent Guillen readily accepted responsibility of the incident subject of this complaint. On the other hand, respondent Gallaron did not deny (lie charge that lie had a drinking spree with his corespondent, although he claimed that he went home to attend to his sick child. His failure to categorically deny the charge can be taken as his implicit admission of the allegation against him.

The exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon court employees and judges are reflective of the premium placed on the image of the court of justice, and that image is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. I[t] thus becomes the imperative and sacred duty of everyone charged with the dispensation of justice, from the judge to the lowliest clerk, to maintain the court's good name and standing as true temples of justice. Circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, their conduct at all times must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but above all else, must be above suspicion. Indeed, every employee [should be an example] of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence (Basco vs. Gregorio, 315 Phil 681 [1995]).

Leaving the office for non-official business and drinking liquor during office hours are violation of reasonable office rules. They constitute light offenses under Sec. 22, Rule XIV (Discipline) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 202 (Revised Adm. Code of 1987).

As to the affidavit submitted by herein complainant manifesting that he is no longer interested in pursuing the case, mere desistance does not warrant the dismissal of the complaint. Once charges have been filed, the Court may not be divested of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint. The court has interest in the conduct of members of the judiciary in improving the delivery of justices to the people, and its efforts in that direction may not be derailed by the complainant's desistance from further prosecuting the case he or she initiated (Imbing vs. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690).

Considering that respondent readily admitted his guilt and considering further that it is his first offense in his 26 years in the judiciary, a fine of P5,000.00 is the proper penalty.^[12] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The OCA thus recommended that

. . . the instant complaint he DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and Mr Danilo Gallaron be REPRIMANDED for Misconduct, while MR. Pepito R Guillen he FINED P5,000.00 for Gross Misconduct. Both are STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.^[13] (Uppercasing and italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

By Resolution of June 27, 2007,^[14] the Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the matter for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed within ten days from notice.

By Manifestation dated August 8, 2007,^[15] complainant, who had earlier filed an Affidavit of Desistance, informed that he was no longer interested in pursuing the case against Guillen.

Guillen prayed that the administrative case against him be dismissed since complainant had already desisted.^[16]

Gallaron failed to comply with the June 27, 2007 Resolution.

The Court finds in order the above-quoted OCA evaluation of the charges against Guillen and Gallaron but modifies its recommendations respecting the imposable penalties thereon.

Leaving the office during office hours at one's pleasure and returning to work reeking with liquor diminish the respect of the people for the Judiciary. In Judge Villanueva v. Larcena, the therein respondent, a utility worker who left the office during office hours and returned already reeking with alcohol, was reprimanded, it being his first offense. The Court explained:

Due to the nature and functions of their office, the officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public service is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate are the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of time for public service. Leaving the office for non-official business and drinking liquor during office hours are violations of reasonable office rules. They constitute light offenses under Section 22, Rule XIV (Discipline) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 296 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws for which the penalties are:

1^st offense - Reprimand
2^nd offense - Suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days.
3^rd offense-Dismissal.^[17]

(Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

It appearing that this is the first offense of respondents, their reprimand is in order.

As for respondent Guillen's acts of shouting/cursing, particularly in the workplace, the same constitutes an act of disrespect towards co-employees and the court, aside from an exhibition of paucity of professionalism.^[18]

The court is looked up to by people where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settle and justice solemnly dispensed. Misbehavior within and around the vicinity diminishes its sanctity and dignity, Their conduct must at all times be characterized by, among other things, propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public's respect and confidence in the judicial service.^[19]

Indeed, high-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in the government service as all personnel are required to act with self-restraint and civility at all times. It appearing that in his 26 years of government service, Guillen has not been priorly administratively charged, the recommended penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000 is in order." ^[20]

As noted above, Gallaron failed to comply with this Court's June 27, 2007 Resolution requiring him to manifest whether he was willing to submit this case for decision based on the pleadings already filed and submitted. He is reminded that this Court's resolutions and orders must be treated not as mere requests and must be complied with completely and adequately, indifference to or defiance of which is punishable by dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by circumstances.^[21] The Court finds that the imposition of a fine of P1,000 on Gallaron for his failure to heed the Court's order is in order.^[22]

WHEREFORE, for leaving the office during office hours for non-official business and drinking alcohol during office hours which constitute light offenses, respondents Pepito B. Guillen and Danilo B. Gallaron are REPRIMANDED

Respondent Guillen is, for shouting/cursing in the workplace, FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000).

Respondent Gallaron is, for failure to comply with this Court's Order, FINED in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000).

Both respondents are, moreover, STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts or offenses shall be dealt with more severely.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] In his Comment, Gallaron staled that lie is holding a permanent position of Clerk III assigned to the Supply Section of the Sandiganbayan.

^[2]  Rollo, p. 5.

^[3]   Id. at 11-13.

^[4]  Id. at 14-15.

^[5] Id. at 12-13.

^[6] Id. at 14-15.

^[7]  Id. at 16-17.

^[8]  Id. at 34.

^[9] Id. at 26.

^[10] Id. at 46. It was sworn to on February 22, 2007.

^[11] Id. at 1-4.

^[12] Id. at 2-3.

^[13]  Id. at 3-4.

^[14] Id. at 52-53.

^[15] Id. at 55.

^[16] Manifestation and Compliance, Id at 77-78.

^[17] Judge Villanueva v. Larcena, 457 Phil. 620, 624 (2003).

^[18] In re: Incident Report of the Security Division, Supreme Court, 437 Phil. 539-540 (2002).

^[19] Merilo-Bedural v. Edroso, 396 Phil. 756, 763 (2000).

^[20] Vide Canlas v. Sheriff Balasbas, 391 Phil. 706 (2000), wherein the therein respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct and was fined P5,000.

^[21] Guerrero v. Judge Deray, 442 Phil. 85, 87 (2002).

^[22] Vide Re: Audit Report on Attendance of Court Personnel of Regional Trial Court, Br. 32, Manila, A.M. No. P-04-1838, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 351, wherein Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr. was fined in the amount of PI,000 for his belated compliance with the directive of the Office of the Court Administrator only after (wo years and only after a show-cause order was issued by the Court.