EN BANC
|
RE: REPORT ON THE ALLEGED
THEFT OF ELECTRICAL WIRES. |
|
A.M. No. 2007-09-SC Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: July
12, 2007 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NACHURA, J.:
This
refers to the Memorandum[1] of
Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative
Officer, dated
The first incident happened on
That day, Michael Fajardo, Security
Guard I, was the guard assigned at the Taft-Faura post for the first shift (
Atty. Candelaria was informed of the
loss by Mr. Bernardito Bundoc, Chief of the Maintenance Division.[5] On
the other hand, Mr. Danilo C. Pablo, Chief of the Security Division, informed
Atty. Candelaria that he had directed an investigation on the matter.[6]
Upon investigation, the Assigned
Investigator, Mr. Joselito Dominguiano, found that about 20 meters of wires
were cut off from the line connecting the spotlights at the
In a Memorandum[7]
dated
Mr. Fajardo explained that he only
heard about the missing wire through communications over the radio monitor. He
also said that since Mr. Lastica already recorded the loss in the logbook, he
no longer included the same in his report as he was not in the area at the time
of the incident.[9] On the
other hand, Mr. Lastica said he re-assigned Mr. Fajardo to the basketball court
because the area was vital, serving as it did as the reserve parking for VIPs.
He said that the Taft-Faura post was where they usually pulled out guards to
augment other areas because that gate is always locked and, at that time, there
were already a lot of people near the area who could notice unusual activities.[10]
The second incident allegedly took place
on
A:
Yes, ang area ng Tango 3 ay mula Taft cor. P. Faura hanggang entrance gate ng
On the other hand, Mr. Harold Cumpio,
Over-all ASIC at the
On
In his Memorandum[15]
dated
According to Mr. Del Mundo, he was
asked by Mr. Pablo to come in to the Security Division office on October 5, his
day off, where the latter informed him that the page where his report was
written was missing. At first, Mr. Del Mundo refused. He said that, being a
criminologist, he thought that the document will be put in question because its
texture was different from the rest of the logbook.[16]
Eventually, Mr. Del Mundo acceded to his superior’s instructions and re-wrote
his report.
On
In
conclusion, while this Office does not find any irregularity in the restoration
of the lost page, the same is not tantamount to saying that Mr. Pablo is at all
free of the reprove that the Court ought to give him. As Chief of the Security
Division, he has the duty to report all instances of losses and all information
pertaining thereto.
The
loss of the page of the logbook aptly demonstrates a security lapse. It
indicates ineptness in the general implementation of security measures within
the Court, which matter, as stated, should be Mr. Pablo’s utmost concern. In
the first place, the fact that it could have been perpetrated by some
disgruntled security personnel cannot be gainsaid since the logbook was under the
Security Division’s custody whose primary duty is about safety and security.
The
claim that the restoration of the report is done in good faith and not tainted
with bad faith is of no moment because he was made to explain on his failure to
report the matter to this Office. Moreover, since the report of Mr. Del Mundo
alleged another loss of electrical wire which draws out an issue and raises
doubt on the motive of the loss of the said page of the report, the issue could
have been easily resolved if the report of Mr. Del Mundo had been kept intact.
Mr. Pablo, in his explanation, ordered the restoration without conducting first
an investigation.
In
fine, although negligence could not be ascribed to a specific guard or guards,
this is not without stating the Security Division is completely blameless for
what occurred.
For
want of proof to support the irregularity on the restoration, this Office finds
no prima facie case against Mr. Pablo. This Office believes that the changes
did not cause substantial deviation from the content of Mr. Del Mundo’s
original report. However, for Mr. Pablo’s failure to exert effort to conduct an
investigation on the loss of the page containing Mr. Del Mundo’s report and his
failure to make a report on the matter, [he] has to be warned for such failure.
With
respect to Mr. Fajardo, his explanation although well-taken, has to be advised
to be more circumspect in the performance of his duty.
In
connection with the order of Mr. Lastica in re-assigning Mr. Fajardo to another
post that left the Taft-Faura post unguarded, regardless of whether or not the
theft occurred at that time, this Office recommends that he should likewise be
advised of the need to take precautionary measures in similar instances in
order to prevent similar incident[s] in the future. In this connection, this
Office believes that the matter is already being addressed by the on-going
hiring or filling-up of security guards positions to augment their number and
reinforce their visibility.
In
view of the foregoing, this Office respectfully recommends for the following
which will form part of their respective 201 Files in this Office:
1.
Mr. Danilo C.
Pablo for his failure to conduct and make a report about the missing page
of the logbook containing Mr. Juan Espuerta, Jr. and Mr. Eligio Del Mundo’s reports, be WARNED for such failure;
2.
Mr. Fernando
Lastica, for making a re-assignment without taking precautionary measures
which exposed to security risk the Taft-Faura post, be WARNED to be more
circumspect in the performance of his duty;
3.
Mr. Michael
Fajardo, be REMINDED of his duty to make a report on all incidents that he
may encounter in his tour of duty; and
4.
Engr. Bernardito
Bundoc, be ADVISED of the need to remove the unnecessary wire, cable, or
installation of whatever kind when the use of such installation is finished in
order to prevent its theft or pilferage.[17]
The recommendations of the OAS for
the Security Division to adopt stricter precautionary measures are well-taken. However, we find the recommended penalties
too light in view of the circumstances. The security personnel in this case
fell short of the strict and rigorous standards required of all security
officers in the Judiciary.[18]
The loss of electrical wires reported
on
Nonetheless, we consider these
incidents indicative of serious lapses in the Court’s over-all security. The
Court cannot condone or close its eyes to transgressions of duty on the part of
judicial personnel which, even if unintended, could have been avoided with the
exercise of requisite care.[19]
Every employee of the Judiciary
should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Their conduct must
not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be
above suspicion at all times.[20]
As officers of the Court, security
personnel are duty-bound to perform their duties with skill, diligence, and to
the best of their ability, particularly where the safety or interests of court
personnel may be jeopardized by their neglect or cavalier attitude towards their
responsibilities.[21]
Indeed, this is not the first time that the Court is confronted with loss of
property within its premises.[22]
In
the case at bar, while no negligence can be ascribed to Mr. Fajardo, this Court
cannot countenance his cavalier attitude towards official duty, especially
coming from a security officer whose function specifically requires a high
level of vigilance. Even when his superior assigned him to another area, the
Taft-Faura post and all incidents therein were his primary and continuing responsibility.
Thus, it remained his responsibility to state in his end-of-duty report that
there was a reported loss of property within his assigned area.
On the other hand, while we cannot
ascribe bad faith to Mr. Lastica, we find that his decision to pull out the
guard from the Taft-Faura gate to augment another area without taking any
precautionary measures for the unmanned post constitutes negligence warranting
disciplinary action.
Simple neglect signifies a disregard
of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[23] Mr.
Lastica explains that he was merely following the usual practice in the
Security Division, but he should have realized that this act exposed a part of
the Court premises to unnecessary risks. Thus, he should have taken adequate measures
to minimize such risks. As one of the
supervisors, he should have been familiar with the protocols to be followed in re-assigning
or moving security personnel on duty. Even if short of personnel, no part of
his area should be left vulnerable or unguarded.
We
come now to the loss of the page in the security logbook.
We cannot now accurately determine
liability for the loss of the logbook page, or prove with reasonable certainty the
veracity of the incident reported therein. However, it is clear that there was
a lapse in the Security Division’s procedure.
The laxity of the security personnel – particularly those who went on
duty at the Taft-Faura post from the time of the report (September 30) to the
discovery of the lost page – contributed in no small way to the loss of the
page and the resultant delay in its discovery. The Court cannot understand how
a page of the logbook could be lost unless it was deliberately torn off. But whether the same is a result of mere
oversight, complacency, or intent to conceal, is of no moment. Due diligence
requires that all security personnel not only accomplish their duty reports but
also ensure that the security logbooks are kept accurate and their integrity
preserved.
The resulting inaction, though, is
attributable to Mr. Pablo himself. His explanation for not reporting and acting
on the loss of the security logbook page does not persuade this Court. It
escapes us how Mr. Pablo, Chief of the Security Division, did not find the loss
of a page of the security logbook – which only the security staff has access to
– suspicious enough to warrant an investigation. Instead of inquiring as to how
such a thing could have happened, however, he ordered the restoration of the
lost reports.
He proffers that this order was made in good faith and without any ill
motive. The moment he became aware of the loss of the page, though, he should
have at once reported the same to the OAS Chief and conducted an investigation,
like he did for the September 27 incident. He did not do so. It was only
several months later, in March 2007, when Atty. Candelaria asked him to explain,
that he spoke up about the incident. And even then it was only to say that he
knew nothing of the same. This, to our mind, militates against his good faith.
Mr. Pablo must have realized the
importance of the information in the missing page as he ordered the immediate
restoration thereof. After its reconstitution, he became aware that the lost
page contained vital and sensitive information.
This should have given rise to the suspicion that such information was what
was sought to be concealed. He still
failed to respond thereto.
He is certainly aware of Section 3, Canon IV, of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel,[24]
which states:
SEC. 3 Court personnel shall not alter, falsify,
destroy or mutilate any record within their control.
Surely, he knew
that his order contravened this provision, and that in doing so, he was
directing his subordinates into violating the same. Even if the restored
logbook entry did not substantially deviate from the original, the deliberate
effort to obscure the incident defeats his claim of good faith.
Mr. Pablo has violated the confidence
reposed upon him by the Court[25]
as chief of its Security Division. His utter lack of diligence to conduct
further inquiry constituted dereliction of duty tantamount to negligence.[26] Moreover,
his failure to properly supervise the conduct of his personnel effectively
exacerbates his neglect of duty.
The Security Division is tasked to
strictly implement all the preventive, corrective, and other safety measures
against the commission of any and all wrongdoings against the Court, its
property, and its personnel.[27]
As such, there is a need to constantly keep them fully cognizant of and
responsive to their grave task of securing the Court and its personnel from
risk or danger.[28] We
understand that the Security Division is undermanned. This, however, should not
be an excuse for security personnel to exercise anything less than due care in
performing their duties.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, Mr. Danilo C. Pablo,
for his failure to make a report about the missing page of the logbook
containing the incident report of the alleged theft on September 30, 2006 and
for failure to undertake the necessary corrective actions thereon, is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and SUSPENDED without pay for a period of one
(1) month effective immediately. He is also WARNED that a repetition of this or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
Mr. Fernando Lastica, for making a re-assignment of personnel without taking precautionary
measures which exposed the Court to security risks, is likewise GUILTY of simple neglect of duty, SUSPENDED without pay for one (1) month
effective immediately, and WARNED that
a repetition of this or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Mr. Michael Fajardo is WARNED for his failure to make
a report on all incidents within his area of responsibility during his tour of
duty.
The Security Division is WARNED for
failure to exercise due diligence in the performance of its duty and REMINDED of its fundamental responsibility
to maintain order within the Court’s premises and to secure the Court and its
personnel from any and all kinds of risk or danger.
Lastly, Engr. Bernardito Bundoc is DIRECTED
to conduct an inspection of Court premises and remove or secure unnecessary
wires, cables, or installations susceptible of being lost or stolen. He is
further directed to SUBMIT a report
thereon within ten (10) days.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES 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 |
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-10.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Letter of Engr. Bundoc to Atty.
Candelaria, id. at 126.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Re: Administrative Liabilities of the
Security Personnel Involved in the Entry of an Unidentified Person at the
Philippine Judicial Academy, A.M. No. 2003-18-SC,
[19] Re: Report Of Judge Enrique T. Jocson
Regarding Defective Property Bonds: Ramiro J. Mendoza, Legal Researcher,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 47,
[20] Lloveras v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-93-817,
[21] Supra
note 18, at 410.
[22] See Re: Report on the Series of Theft in the Premises of the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 2006-09-SC,
[23] Blanquisco v. Austero-Bolilan, A.M. No. P-03-1704,
[24] A.M.
No. 03-06-13-SC,
[25] See Re: Report of Mr. Dominador P. Itliong, Officer-In-Charge,
[26] Supra
note 18, at 410.
[27] Re:
Report on the Series of Theft in the Premises of the Supreme Court, supra
note 22.
[28] Re: Report of Mr. Dominador P. Itliong, supra note 25, at 299, citing Re: Initial Reports on the Grenade Incident That Occurred on December 6, 1999 submitted by DCAs Zenaida Elepaño and Reynaldo Suarez, 367 SCRA 1 (2001).