ANONYMOUS, COMPLAINANT, VS. BERNARD P. ELLAMIL, JR., UTILITY WORKER, BRANCH 2, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES BAGUIO CITY, RESPONDENT.

Anonymous versus Ellamil

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the employees of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Baguio City, Branch 2, through an anonymous complaint, against Bernard Ellamil, Junior, a utility worker of that branch, together with the Executive Judge and the Acting Branch Clerk of Court and Supply Officer. The complaint charged gross dishonesty and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the judicial service. The case matters because it is a clean, modern illustration of how the Supreme Court classifies and penalizes dishonesty in the judiciary under the amended Rule 140, and of what happens when the erring employee resigns before judgment can be rendered.

Procedural History

The anonymous complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, which referred the matter to the Executive Judge of Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City for discreet investigation. The Executive Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities conducted her own investigation and recommended the filing of charges against Ellamil and a certain Manny Genove, while suggesting that the Acting Branch Clerk of Court be spared. She later informed the Office of the Court Administrator that Ellamil had resigned and recommended that any administrative action against him be mooted.

The Office of the Court Administrator found the allegation of conspiracy against the Executive Judge and the Acting Branch Clerk of Court uncorroborated, recommended that the complaint against them be closed and terminated for lack of merit, and directed Ellamil to file his comment. He was directed three times and never complied. The Office of the Executive Director of the Judicial Integrity Board then rendered its own report and recommendation, finding him liable for serious dishonesty and prejudicial conduct, and the Judicial Integrity Board adopted that recommendation in full. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court rendered its decision through the Judicial Integrity Board's report and recommendation.

Facts

On the morning of February 25, 2017, Ellamil hauled one hundred twenty reams of bond paper from Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Baguio City to a taxi and transported them to the residence of the Executive Judge. The guards at the hall of justice recorded the act in their logbook and took photographs, but could not stop it after being told that the Executive Judge had ordered the taking. The complaint also alleged that the Acting Branch Clerk of Court and Supply Officer could not have missed the supplies being prepared a day earlier.

The investigation showed an earlier incident. On February 11, 2017, Manny Genove, who did work for the Public Attorney's Office, took out twenty bundles of office supplies from the branch, consisting of reams of onion skin, bond paper, and mimeographing paper. A head security guard asked him about the items, and Genove answered that he was removing scraps and disposable materials. The guard reported the matter, and Ellamil later arrived to confirm to the guards that the items were disposable.

Required to explain, the Acting Branch Clerk of Court denied authorizing any disposal and said Ellamil never sought his permission. Ellamil claimed the papers were mutilated and gnawed by rodents, so he asked Genove to help discard them, and Genove then asked for the papers for his personal use. Ellamil admitted he did not seek the approval of the Acting Branch Clerk of Court or the Executive Judge. Genove admitted the supplies came from Ellamil, that he hauled them in small batches, and that he sold them to vegetable vendors as wrapping paper. The Executive Judge found the supplies were still in their unopened original packaging and in good condition, and placed their total value at twenty three thousand four hundred forty three pesos. Ellamil resigned effective April 1, 2017.

Issues

• Whether or not Ellamil waived his right to participate in the proceedings by failing to file his verified comment despite three directives.
• Whether or not Ellamil is guilty of serious dishonesty.
• Whether or not Ellamil is guilty of prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may still be imposed despite his supervening resignation, and if not, what penalty should be imposed in lieu thereof.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, paragraph 3 of the Further Amendments to Rule 140 provides:

Failure of the respondent to file his or her verified answer or comment shall, unless otherwise justified, result in his or her waiver to participate in the proceedings, and the investigation may proceed based on the available evidence on record.

This provision authorized the Court to proceed against Ellamil despite his repeated non-compliance.

Section 3 of the Revised Rules on the Administrative Offense of Dishonesty of the Civil Service Commission provides:

The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act constitutes the administrative offense of Serious Dishonesty: The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the government such as when the integrity of the office is tarnished, or the operations of the office are affected. The respondent gravely abused his/her authority in order to commit the dishonest act. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which he/she is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent whether or not said act was committed in the performance of his/her duties. The dishonest act involves a civil service examination irregularity or fake civil service eligibility, such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets. The dishonest act relates to the respondent's employment such as but not limited to misrepresentation on his/her qualifications as to education, experience, training and eligibility in order to qualify for a particular position, and/or the submission of fake and/or spurious credentials. Other analogous circumstances.

This provision supplied the standard by which the Court measured whether the dishonesty was serious.

Section 18 of Rule 140 provides:

When a respondent is found liable for an offense which merits the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service but the same can no longer be imposed due to his or her supervening resignation, the following penalties may be imposed in lieu of dismissal: (a) forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations, except accrued leave credits; and/or (b) the above-mentioned fine.

This provision governed the penalty after Ellamil's resignation made dismissal impossible.

Section 20 of Rule 140 provides:

If one or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed by the Rule.

This provision allowed the Court to reduce the fine in view of the mitigating circumstance of first offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Ellamil waived his right to present evidence and to participate in the proceedings. He had been ordered three times to file his verified comment, and he never complied, so the investigation proceeded on the available evidence on record.

On the second issue, the Court found him guilty of serious dishonesty. Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth, showing a lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, and an intent to violate the truth. His claim that the papers were mutilated was belied by the photographs showing the supplies intact and still in their original packaging. He never explained why he sought no permission and why the disposal had to be done on a Saturday, when fewer people would see it. The Court held that the bond paper, onion skin, and mimeographing paper are essential to the judicial and administrative tasks of the trial court, so taking them affected its daily operations and caused damage to the government.

The Court added that even if the supplies had been unserviceable, giving them to Genove was improper, because disposal of court property must follow the recognized modes. It quoted Revised Administrative Circular Number 7-2004:

Unnecessary property may be disposed by trade-in, transfer to other offices of the Judiciary, sale to personnel, public auction or bidding, sale through negotiation after two (2) unsuccessful public biddings or failure of public auction, transfer without costs to other government agencies, or destruction or condemnation. The Disposal Committee shall undertake that mode of disposal which is most advantageous to the Judiciary.

On the third issue, the Court found him guilty of prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service. This offense covers acts or omissions not strictly part of one's official functions but punished because they diminish the people's faith in the Judiciary. It exists when the act has no direct relation to the performance of official duties and is not covered by any other specific offense in the Rules. As a utility worker, Ellamil was not the custodian of the office supplies and had no power to decide whether they were unserviceable or to give them away. Without his authorization, Genove could not have taken and sold them.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that where a single act constitutes more than one offense, the respondent is liable for all but is meted only the penalty for the most serious. Serious dishonesty and prejudicial conduct are serious charges punishable by dismissal, suspension, or a fine of more than one hundred thousand pesos but not exceeding two hundred thousand pesos. Because dismissal could no longer be imposed due to his resignation, the Court applied Section 18. Considering that this was his first offense and that suspension could no longer be imposed, the Court imposed a fine of fifty thousand and one pesos, which is not less than half of the minimum prescribed.

Doctrine

First, failure of a respondent in an administrative case to file a verified comment despite notice results in waiver of the right to participate, and the investigation proceeds on the available evidence.

Second, serious dishonesty is determined by the circumstances of the case, and any one of the circumstances listed by the Civil Service Commission suffices, including serious damage and grave prejudice to the government or moral depravity on the part of the respondent.

Third, court supplies are intended for public use, and court personnel are charged with safeguarding court property in whatever condition it may be found. Disposal of court property, even if unserviceable, outside the modes fixed by Revised Administrative Circular Number 7-2004 is an act of impropriety.

Fourth, prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service requires that the act be without direct relation to official duties and not covered by any other specific offense in the Rules.

Fifth, when the penalty of dismissal can no longer be imposed because of supervening resignation, the Court may impose forfeiture of benefits and disqualification, or a fine, and the mitigating circumstance of first offense may reduce the fine to not less than half of the minimum prescribed.

Disposition

The Court found Bernard Ellamil, Junior guilty of serious dishonesty and prejudicial conduct that besmirches or taints the reputation of the service, and, in view of his resignation and his first offense, imposed a fine of fifty thousand and one pesos, payable within three months, deductible from his salaries and benefits including accrued leave credits if unpaid, with the decision immediately executory.

Remember This

Remember the line that resignation does not erase liability but only changes the penalty: the dishonest employee is still found guilty, and the fine in lieu of dismissal may go down to not less than half of the minimum. Examiners like to use this case on serious dishonesty under the amended Rule 140, on the effect of a respondent's failure to file a comment, and on the supervening resignation rule in Section 18.