|
RE:
COMPLAINTS AGAINST MR. ALEXANDER R. BLANCA, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
GENERAL FOREMAN, HALL OF JUSTICE, MORONG, RIZAL. |
A. M. No.
2005-09-SC Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING,* YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,** CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, GARCIA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
This administrative matter is a
consolidation of three complaints, to wit: the (a) February 6, 200[3] sworn
letter-complaint[1]
of Sales T. Bisnar (Bisnar), Sheriff IV of Branch 78, Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Morong, Rizal addressed to Executive Judge Candido Delos Santos; (b) March
11, 2005 letter-complaint[2]
of Bisnar addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court; and (c) March 2, 2004 letter-complaint[3]
of six (6) security guards of the Hall of Justice, Morong, all against
Alexander R. Blanca (respondent), a casual employee whose appointment as
Construction and Maintenance General Foreman, Hall of Justice, Morong, has, for
the last nine years, been renewed every six months.
In his sworn complaint of
In his
1.
2.
3.
Bisnar went
on to inform that on those three occasions, the guards on duty asked respondent
for the gate pass in bringing out the items but the latter answered, “Remember
that I am the one signing your Daily Time Records,”[6]
drawing the guards to just record the incidents in the logbook.
The third letter-complaint of March 2,
2004 which was filed by Leonardo Golocino, Jr., Jonathan Fronda, Irineo Sobusa,
Newell Barnachea, Rogelio Paulite and Sofronio Taisan, Jr., security guards all
of the Combined Blue Dragon Security Services, Inc. who were assigned at the Hall
of Justice of Morong, charged respondent with an overbearing and arrogant manner
of supervision. They relate that on
several occasions, respondent scolded them in front of many people even for the
slightest mistake they committed, and in one instance, one of them received a mouthful
of insults from respondent regarding the implementation of the policy on
parking of vehicles in front of the Hall of Justice.[7]
Denying the charges against him, respondent,
in his Comment[8]
of
There was no
need to ask permission from his superior with respect to the bringing out of
the Vulca Seal can, it being empty.
On his
alleged tolerance of the absences of Onofre Francis Crisologo who was reported
to have stopped reporting for work effective the last quarter of 2002,
respondent averred that Crisologo had been reporting directly to Atty. Myrna
Directo, Clerk of Court VI, effective October 2002.
As for the alleged
unattended rotting parts of the Hall of Justice, respondent averred that he had
already sent to this Court a Maintenance Report for the last quarter of 2002
stating the repairs and installations made in the hall.
On the
claim that he is not qualified for his position, respondent averred that he has
the necessary academic and employment background.
Respecting the questioned bringing out of items in May and July 2004,
respondent, in his Comment[9]
of May 19, 2005, explained that he was requested by Assistant Prosecutor of
Rizal Wilfredo Oca to fabricate a wooden filing cabinet and a typing table for
which he bought a piece of plyboard and a piece of plywood. As he has a
complete set of carpentry tools and equipment at home, he told Prosecutor Oca
that he would just bring the items home so he could accomplish the requested
job expeditiously.
As regards the electrical tube which
he brought out without permission, respondent explained that during the first
week of June 2004, he was requested by Emma Dionisio, Clerk of Court of the Municipal
Trial Court of Morong, to install an additional electrical outlet for the air
conditioning unit in the staff room. He was given money to, and he did, buy 15 meters
of electrical tube. He thereupon brought out the electrical tube from the Hall
of Justice to show it to the municipal electrician of Morong so the latter
could calculate if there was still need for him to buy some more.
After investigation, the Office of Administrative
Services (OAS) of this Court came out with the following findings:
1. Respondent
Blanca has not shown any overbearing conduct or arrogant manner in his
supervision over the guards on duty. What Mr. Blanca might have demonstrated is bossy
and tyrannical to some but reasonable to others. This Office believes that this
is merely a simple case of misunderstanding between Security Guard Sobusa and
respondent Blanca on the issue of parking slot policy. To remedy the situation,
all of the security guards wrote an apology to respondent Blanca hoping to
restore their friendships that existed between them prior to the incident. In
short, the case was amicably settled. Be that as it may, respondent Blanca is
nonetheless reminded to be more courteous and respectful to everybody at all
times;
“Q: Di ba kahit sino’ng bumasa n’yan (referring to the Security
Logbook), kahit kayo, ang lumalabas dito may laman ‘yung inilabas n’yo…
S’yempre ho ang tendency n’yan, kakausapin n’yo ‘yung guwardiya, “Bakit naman
nilista mo ako d’yan, eh lata lang naman nilabas ko?”
A: Hindi na po. Natural lang po sa trabaho ng mga guwardiya. Kasi kapag magre-react
“Bakit mo inano yan?” baka sabihin nila may laman. ‘Yun
naman po ang akin doon kaya hindi po ako. Ok lang, trabaho nila yan.
Q: So hindi na po kayo gumawa ng komentaryo?
A: Hindi. Hindi po ako.. Sa akin po normal lang po, sa kanilang
trabaho ‘yun eh, na ilista po kung ano..”
The Security Logbook shows the entries as follows:
“Golocino,
L.
Dampog, S.
RTC Morong
x x x
1810 Hrs – x x x
Note: Light of PAO Office open
1915 Hrs. – Mr. Blanca, A.
went in of PAO Office; Switch off the light. After few min. went out with one
(1) gallon Vulca Seal; went home.
x x x”
It would seem respondent Blanca easily takes little
things or supplies of the Court out of the Hall without permission or proper
authority by justifying this act simply because what was involved were perhaps
good as junks and garbage anyway. Thievery, no matter how petty or small the
value, is still thievery and has no place in the Judiciary.
Court personnel are charged with the duty and
responsibility of safeguarding and protecting court property in whatever
condition or state it may be found. One should not, and never, even attempt to
pilfer or steal, dissipate or destroy the same. But what makes respondent’s act
detestable is the idea that he is part of the institution that is in the
forefront in the campaign against the commission of the crime. He is thus the
least expected to do an act that can cast doubt on the institution’s sincerity
in the performance of its role.
Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules,
dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from
the service with forfeiture of all benefits, excluding leave credits, if any,
and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations.
While the rules allow the consideration of any
mitigating circumstances and provide the manner of imposition of the proper
penalty, this Office is not discounting the presence of such circumstances
surrounding his case. Since this is respondent’s first offense committed and he
has been in the service quite long, respondent is therefore entitled to a
penalty lesser than dismissal. Respondent Blanca was hired as casual
employee since 1998 who up to the present is holding the position
Construction and Maintenance General Foreman in the Hall of Justice, Morong
Rizal. His appointment therefore is renewable every six (6) months
subject to the prerogative of the appointing authority. Being a holder of a
casual appointment, respondent has no security of tenure and can be separated
from the service anytime. Instead of imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service, in the
interest of justice and for humanitarian reason as held by the Court in Re: Anonymous
Complaint against Ms. Rowena Marinduque, Casual Utility Worker II, assigned at
PHILJA Development Center, Tagaytay City, Mr. Blanca’s services should be terminated
because of his questionable actions which amount to breach of trust and
confidence.[10]
(Italics in the original; emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The OAS
accordingly recommended the termination of respondent’s services without prejudice,
however, to reemployment, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office respectfully
recommends that the foregoing provision of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book
V of EO 292 be waived to subject-employee Mr. Alexander R. Blanca, Construction
and Maintenance General Foreman, Hall of Justice Morong Rizal. Instead, his
services be terminated effective immediately but without prejudice
to reemployment in any branch or agency of the government, including
government-owned[-]or[-] controlled corporations.[11]
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court
finds the evaluation of the OAS well-taken.
Respondent’s
passive reaction as reflected in his italicized testimony during the
investigation of the case which is quoted in the OAS report, after the guards
reported his bringing out of a gallon of Vulca Seal, even calling it normal,
despite his claim that the can was empty, seals the case against him.
That respondent
brought the stuff out on July 27, 2002, a Saturday-non-working day, at
nighttime, after his attention was called to, as he did, switch off the light
in the Public Attorney’s Office of the Hall of Justice, following which he proceeded
to the Maintenance Office, all the more lends credence to the report of the
guard on duty that the stuff was a gallon “full” of Vulca Seal.
Leonardo
Golocino, Jr., the security guard of RTC Morong, Rizal who was on duty when the
taking out of the questioned item occurred, testified during the investigation
conducted at the Conference Room, Office of Administrative Services on
Q Iyun sa vulca seal ng inilabas ni Mr. Blanca kasi mayroon
siyang allegation sa sagot niya na balde lang ‘yun.
A Hindi po kasi iba po ang dala sa may laman sa walang
laman at saka ang distance namin ay one meter lang.
Q Pero nagkaroon ka ba ng chance na hawakan ang balde?
A Hindi po pero kung lata iyun eh
maliwanag ang lata at talagang hindi pa nga po nabubuksan. Hindi pa sila
gumagawa sa bubong o naglalagay ng vulca seal. Dalawang gallon po na
vulca seal at mga pintura.
Q So, tingin mo lang na may laman talaga?
Kasi sabi niya gagamitin lang niya ang lata kaya lata lang ang kinuha niya.
A May laman po talaga.
Q Ano bang klase iyun?
A Lata po na isang gallon.
Q So, tingin mo malinis pa siya as in hindi pa nabubuksan?
A Malinis pa po talaga.
Q At saka papaano ang paghawak niya sa vulca seal?
A Iba po ang pag hawak sa may laman at saka wala. Magsu-sway
po ang lata kung walang laman.
Q Hindi mo ba sinasabi iyan dahil galit
ka kay Mr. Blanca dahil hindi maganda ang pag-trato sa iyo?
A Alam n’yo Sir, wala po kaming personal
na alitan. Sa katunayan po eh barkada po kami niyan kaya lang ang paglalabas ng
item na ganyan eh hindi naman kami magpapabaya kasi kaya nga po kami
nandoon para pangalagaan ang gamit ng gobyerno kaya inila-logbook namin
kung ano ang mga nailalabas.
x x x x[12] (Italics and underscoring supplied)
Section 5 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel[13]
mandates that “[c]ourt personnel shall use the resources, property and funds
under their official custody in a judicious manner and solely in accordance
with the prescribed statutory and regulatory guidelines or procedure.” Similarly,
Section 4(A)(a) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, requires that
“[a]ll government resources … must be employed and used efficiently,
effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public
funds and revenues.”
Court
supplies are intended for public use. That is why Court personnel are charged
with the duty and responsibility of safeguarding and protecting court property
in whatever condition or state it may be found.[14]
Pilferage of such property by those employed in the judiciary is reprehensible
as it tarnishes the image of the institution which is in the forefront in the
campaign against the commission of crimes. No matter how petty, thievery has no place in
the judiciary.[15]
Thus,
in Baquerfo v. Sanchez,[16]
this Court declared that the pilferage and sale of court properties – “unserviceable”
desk fans and electric stove – by a legal researcher of the RTC of Lianga,
Surigao del Sur, is grave misconduct for which he should, had he not resigned
from office, have been dismissed with prejudice to reemployment in the government,
including government-owned-or-controlled corporations.
In
Re: Pilferage of Supplies in the Stockroom of the Property Division[17]
where the therein respondent, an employee of the Shipping and Delivery Section,
Property Division, Office of the Court Administrator who was in-charge of the
issuance and distribution of office supplies to different offices and
divisions, was caught stealing several office supplies of the court, this Court
dismissed him for dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Under
Section 52 of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service, dismissal is the prescribed penalty for grave misconduct and dishonesty,
being classified as grave offenses, even for first-time offenders. Section 58
thereof provides that “[t]he penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the
perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless
otherwise provided in the decision.” Section
53,[18]
however, of the same Rules acknowledges the applicability of mitigating,
aggravating and alternative circumstances which attended the commission of the
offense in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, such as
habituality and length of service.
Since respondent has been employed
for quite a long period of time – since
WHEREFORE, the services of respondent ALEXANDER R. BLANCA, Construction and
Maintenance General Foreman, Hall of Justice, Morong, Rizal is TERMINATED effective immediately upon receipt of this
decision, without prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government,
including government-owned-and-controlled corporations.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
(ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice (ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES- Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
* On Official Leave.
** On Leave.
[1] Rollo, p. 5.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Ibid.
[7] Id.at 16.
[8] Id.at 6-7.
[9]
[10]
[11] Id.at 190.
[12] Id.at 167.
[13] Promulgated on
[14] Baquerfo v. Sanchez, A.M. No.
P-05-1974,
[15]
[16] Supra note 14.
[17] 389 Phil. 45 (2000).
[18] Section 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative Circumstances. – In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered.
The following circumstances shall be appreciated:
a. Physical illness
b. Good faith
c. Taking undue advantage of official position
d. Taking undue advantage of subordinate
e. Undue disclosure of confidential information
f. Use of government property in the commission of the offense
g. Habituality
h. Offense is committed during office hours and within the premises of the office or building
i. Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense
j. Length of service in the government
k. Education, or
l. Other analogous circumstances
Nevertheless, in the appreciation thereof, the same must be invoked or pleaded by the proper party; otherwise, said circumstances shall not be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. The Commission, however, in the interest of substantial justice may take and consider these circumstances.
[19] Rollo,
p. 126.