FIRST DIVISION
|
JUDGE
JUANITA C. TIENZO, Complainant, - versus - DOMINADOR R.
FLORENDO, Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court of Lupao, Nueva Ecija, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-05-1982
Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August
28, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA,
J.:
This
administrative matter was initiated by a Memorandum[1]
dated
The report[2]
of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the administrative matter at
hand reads as follows:
Judge Tienzo in her
memorandum to respondent copy furnished this Office, stated the following:
She had caught
respondent [Florendo] playing a game of chance “tong-it” in a hut at the back
of the Municipal Building of Lupao despite warning on
For repeating the
same act the third time she directed respondent to report in the office at 8:00
a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. Respondent was also warned to
refrain from revealing confidential matters in the office by giving information
as to the issuance of a warrant of arrest to those accused of a crime and for
relaying fake information to people within the jurisdiction of the Court.
There were three (3)
directives issued by this Office to respondent on the following dates, to wit:
1.
1st Indorsement dated
2.
First (1st) Tracer dated
3.
Second (2nd) Indorsement dated
The registry
return receipts for the above three (3) directives indicate that respondent
received them, but respondent has never submitted his comment.[3]
On the
basis of available records, the OCA recommended that the respondent be
adjudged guilty of illegal gambling during office hours and he be meted the
penalty of dismissal, but without forfeiture of his retirement benefits and
leave credits. Cited to justify the imposition of the recommended penalty is Section
52 (c) (5), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases, which prescribes the penalty of dismissal upon a public
officer for engaging in gambling, where said public officer commits the same
offense a third time. The said Rule states:
C. The following are Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:
xxx xxx xxx
5. Gambling prohibited by law
1st Offense – Reprimand;
2nd Offense – Suspension for 1-30 days;
3rd
Offense – Dismissal.
While it
agrees with the OCA’s recommendation as to the respondent’s guilt, the Court excepts with respect to the imposable penalty. As it were, the
Civil Service Uniform Rules prescribes the penalty of dismissal for gambling
for the third offense. When the law speaks of “third offense,” the reference is
to a third final judgment of guilt after the erring officer has been duly
charged with gambling. As it were, respondent
was thrice warned to refrain from playing “tong-its”
during office hours. The records reveal that, for the first two gambling infractions
he appeared to have committed, respondent was not charged formally. What is
clear is that he was merely warned. Judge Tienzo appeared
to be open to the prospect of reform, and the good judge desisted from taking official
action against the respondent, as her Office Memorandum to the respondent
discloses.[4]
Respondent was formally charged only after the occurrence of the third gambling
incident. As such, the penalty of dismissal prescribed under Section 52 (c)
(5), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases cannot strictly apply. For all intents and purposes, this case may be
considered as respondent’s first gambling offense.
The Court,
however, would be trivializing a misconduct if it lets
go a recalcitrant court employee with a mere slap on the wrist, like a
reprimand. As the Court clearly notes, respondent defied warnings from his
superior not to engage anymore in any gambling activity. What is more,
respondent did not even have the good sense of apologizing to the complaining
judge about the error of his ways. Compounding the matter is his gall of not
even submitting a comment to the charge of gambling, after being repeatedly
required by the OCA. A fine with warning
would be appropriate under the premises.
Time and
again, the Court has emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility which court
officials and employees are mandated to carry. They are constantly reminded
that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of
official functions must be avoided. The
Court will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all
those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of
public accountability and diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary.[5]
Gambling is
a pernicious practice rightfully
regarded as the offspring of idleness and the prolific parent of vice and
immorality, demoralizing in its association and tendencies, detrimental to the
best interests of society, and encouraging wastefulness, thriftlessness, and a
belief that a livelihood may be earned by means other than honest industry. To
be condemned in itself, gambling has the further effect of causing poverty,
dishonesty, fraud, and deceit. Many a man has neglected his business and
family, and mortgaged his integrity to follow the fickle Goddess of the cards.
Many a woman has wasted her hours and squandered her substance at the gambling
board while home and children have been neglected if not altogether forgotten.[6]
A common gambler is
a common nuisance, insensible to honor, deaf to pity, bent upon plunder, he is human cormorant, more destructible than the
bird of prey itself.[7]
The Court,
to be sure, frowns on gambling, as the vice may lead to the more nefarious
consequence already all too well-known as graft. The image of a court of
justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the
men and women at its helm. Hence, it becomes the imperative and sacred duty of
each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true
temple of justice.[8]
Republic
Act No. 6713, also known as The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, enunciates the State policy of promoting a high
standard of ethics and responsibility in the public service. No other office in
the government exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness
from an employee than the judiciary. Consequently, everyone involved in the
administration and dispensation of justice, from the lowliest employee to the
highest official, is expected to live up to the most exacting standard of
honesty, integrity and uprightness.
It would be
well for the respondent to remember these tenets, given his apparent proclivity
to the detestable vice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Dominador R. Florendo
is found GUILTY of gambling during
office hours and is hereby FINED in an
amount equivalent to his three (3) months basic salary and WARNED against a repetition of such improper conduct.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
[3] Even up to this time, the
respondent has not submitted any comment to the charge against him.
[4]
[5] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Liwanag, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1440,
[6]
[7] Smith v.
[8] Aquino v. Fernandez, A.M. No. P-01-1475,