RE: AMADO T. RESMA, SIMEON L. SUMBILLA JR., LEO L. SABISAJE, GODOFREDO M. BARAWID, EMMANUEL B. LULUQUISIN, RAMON H. MANGUNDAYAO, TOMAS B. YUMOL JR., LEONARDO DE JESUS, LAUREANO …

Resma versus Sumbilla

The Case

This is an administrative disciplinary case commenced by the Supreme Court itself, on the strength of a newspaper report, against a group of employees of the City Court of Manila — clerks, deputy clerks, bailiffs, laborers and a lawyer — who were said to have converted the courtroom of Branch III into a gambling den after office hours. It matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of how the Court weighs conflicting evidence in an administrative proceeding, where the quantum is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence, and where the conduct of the respondents after apprehension — silence, flight, a convenient alibi invented late — may be taken as evidence of guilt. Second, it fixes the administrative liability of supervising clerks who, even without personally gambling, fail to secure the courtroom and its records.

Procedural History

The case began not with a complaint but with a directive. The Court Administrator, on the instructions of the Chief Justice, wrote Executive Judge Antonio Paredes of the City Court of Manila, directing him to investigate and report the facts behind a newspaper story that police had caught six city court employees gambling inside the sala of Judge Rosario Veloso. Judge Paredes investigated, required explanations, and submitted a memorandum-report recommending dismissal for six employees, six months' suspension for the branch clerk and deputy clerk, and fifteen days' suspension for four others. In a resolution dated June 26, 1980, the Supreme Court en banc adopted these penalties. The respondents moved for reconsideration, pleading that their guilt was not sufficiently proven, that the penalties were harsh, and that they had not had their day in court. Acting on that motion, the Court directed the Court Administrator to conduct a formal investigation. Court Administrator Lorenzo Relova presided over hearings in August and September 1980, and the case then returned to the Supreme Court for decision.

Facts

Judge Veloso of Branch III went on leave of absence beginning April 28, 1980. A week later, an anonymous woman telephoned Judge Paredes and claimed that the courtroom had been turned into a gambling casino, that the branch clerk Tomas Yumol Jr. and deputy clerk Leonardo de Jesus were the maintainers, that whiskey and cigarettes were served, and that the sessions ran from about half past two to half past eight in the evening, the place being a court building that the police would not be expected to raid.

On May 8 or 9, 1980, at about half past six in the evening, Judge Paredes went to the courtroom incognito, with his pants rolled up, rubber shoes, a hat, sunglasses and a polo shirt. Through the transparent glass door he saw twelve employees drinking liquor, smoking and playing cards with cash on the table. On May 13 a woman who identified herself as the wife of one of the employees called again, pleading that the gambling on the coming payday, May 14, would deprive her of her husband's salary. The judge asked the Western Police District for police action. On May 14, at about half past six in the evening, he again went incognito and saw the employees gathered around the lawyer's table drinking White Castle Whiskey. At about seven o'clock the police arrived with media photographers, made a surprise entrance, and arrested six employees found playing for money the prohibited game of Lucky Nine — Amado Resma as dealer, and Leo Sabisaje, Ramon Mangundayao, Godofredo Barawid, Emmanuel Luluquisin and Simeon Sumbilla as bettors. Two decks of American playing cards, cash of 250 pesos, whiskey bottles and an empty milk can, presumably used for the tong, were seized. The six were brought to the police precinct and charged before the fiscal's office under the Gambling Law.

Required to explain, the respondents denied everything. Yumol and de Jesus said they never allowed drinking or gambling in the courtroom. The six arrested denied gambling and drinking and denied any sessions from April 28 to May 14. De Jesus and Villanueva claimed a mistake in identity. Guevarra said he had gone home between half past six and seven o'clock after practising dama, a board game, in Branch III. Tamayo and Javier said they were not present during the raid. At the formal hearings the arrested respondents shifted ground and claimed they were playing dama, not cards for money, when the police entered. The prosecution witnesses — Judge Paredes, Lieutenant Ricardo Reyes and Corporal Alejandro Musngi — positively identified the respondents and uniformly testified that they saw no dama board or pieces, but did see cards and money on the table.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents who were arrested on May 14, 1980 were guilty of grave misconduct for gambling for money inside the courtroom of Branch III.
• Whether or not the respondents who were seen drinking, smoking and playing cards on May 8 or 9, 1980, but were not arrested during the raid, were guilty of grave misconduct.
• Whether or not respondents Yumol and de Jesus, as branch clerk and deputy clerk, were guilty of neglect of duty for failing to secure the courtroom and its records.
• Whether or not the penalties recommended by the investigating judge were proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it rests on the civil service rules on discipline, which the Court applies through the charge of grave misconduct and neglect of duty. The governing principle of evidence in administrative cases, as the Court treats it, is that administrative guilt may be established by substantial evidence — that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion — and not by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the six arrested respondents guilty. The testimony of Judge Paredes, Lieutenant Reyes and Corporal Musngi was positive, consistent and corroborated by the photographs, which, as the Court put it, do not lie. Against this, the respondents' defense of dama collapsed under scrutiny. The Court noted that from May 23, when Judge Paredes required them to explain, to May 29, when they answered, the six arrested respondents had six days to prepare, and not one of them raised the dama defense; it was only Guevarra who first mentioned it. The Court also found it unnatural for Mangundayao to carry bulky playing cards in his hip pocket for hours, and asked why the respondents would stand idly in an empty courtroom for fifteen minutes at almost seven in the evening when they were supposed to have gone home at five. Their conduct at the raid betrayed them: Resma ran toward a door looking for an exit and scooped money from the table; when told they were being arrested for Lucky Nine, none of them commented; when Judge Paredes asked why they were drinking and gambling, Resma, Sabisaje, Luluquisin and Mangundayao simply stared at him and said nothing. The Court treated this as the normal reaction of persons caught in the act.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondents seen on May 8 or 9 — Javier, Guevarra, Tamayo and Villanueva — were liable for habitually frequenting the courtroom while the prohibited game was being played for money, and imposed fifteen days' suspension on each.

On the third issue, the Court held Yumol and de Jesus liable for neglect of duty. Even assuming they did not tolerate the gambling, they failed as supervisors to maintain the security of the courtroom where records were kept. Yumol admitted the courtroom was not locked during the questioned period because many people came to look for records, and that he never assigned the locking of the room to any particular employee, a practice the Court called defective, risky and even unimaginable. De Jesus admitted he was not even sure whether the session hall was open or closed. The Court imposed six months' suspension without pay on both.

On the fourth issue, the Court found the penalties commensurate with the offenses and denied the plea for leniency.

Doctrine

First, in administrative disciplinary cases, guilt is established by substantial evidence, and the positive, consistent testimony of disinterested witnesses, corroborated by photographs and by the respondents' own conduct at the scene, prevails over bare denials and a defense raised for the first time at the formal investigation. Second, the silence of a person caught in the act, his flight, and his failure to protest his arrest may be taken as circumstances indicating guilt. Third, a branch clerk of court and his deputy are charged with the custody and security of the courtroom and its records; their failure to keep the room locked and to assign responsibility for locking it constitutes neglect of duty, even absent proof that they personally tolerated the wrongdoing. Fourth, the penalties must fit the gravity of the offense, and the Court will not reduce them on a plea of mercy where the misconduct was committed inside a court of justice.

Disposition

The Court held the respondents administratively liable and imposed the penalties earlier resolved: dismissal from the service for the six employees who played Lucky Nine for money inside the courtroom, six months' suspension without pay for the branch clerk and deputy clerk, and fifteen days' suspension without pay for the four who habitually frequented the courtroom during the gambling sessions.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: positive testimony and the conduct of the respondents at the scene prevail over a late-invented alibi, and supervising clerks who fail to secure the courtroom are liable for neglect of duty even without proof of toleration. Examiners use this case on the substantial evidence standard in administrative proceedings, on the evidentiary weight of silence and flight, and on the administrative liability of clerks of court for the security of court records.