ATTY. THELMA GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. ROMEO EULLARAN, RESPONDENT.

Garcia versus Eullaran

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Atty. Thelma Garcia, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, charged a subordinate employee of the same court, Romeo Eullaran, a Staff Assistant, with grave violations of the civil service law. The complainant alleged neglect of duty, misconduct, inefficiency, frequent unauthorized absences, tardiness, habitual drunkenness, refusal to perform official duty, insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of every person who works in an office charged with the dispensation of justice, and because it shows how this Court treats an employee who offers no real defense to the charges against him.

Procedural History

The case began as a sworn letter-complaint filed with this Court by the Clerk of Court against the respondent. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, acting under the Court's administrative authority, ordered the respondent to answer within seventy-two hours and to state whether he wanted a formal investigation. The respondent failed to file any answer despite an extension of time granted to him. The Executive Judge then submitted a Report and Recommendation treating that failure as an admission of guilt and recommending summary proceedings, with the sworn statements and documents treated as direct evidence for the complainant. Later, through an indorsement of the Deputy Court Administrator, the respondent was given a chance to be heard, and he submitted a comment. The matter then came before this Court as an administrative complaint against a court employee, and the Court resolved it on the record.

Facts

The complainant set out a detailed list of charges. She alleged that the respondent did not perform his regular functions and refused those assigned to him; that on March 31, 1989, at about half past two in the afternoon, he entered the Office of the Clerk of Court drunk and fought with a co-employee, Gilbert Solis, disrupting the work of the office; that he had more unauthorized absences than days present; that he was always late; that he appeared many times during office hours under the influence of liquor and sometimes drunk; that he refused to perform official duty; that he wilfully disobeyed instructions from his superior, such as the filing of daily time records and leave applications; and that all of this constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. She supported the complaint with her own letter to the Executive Judge and with the affidavits of four other court employees, all corroborating the acts complained of.

The respondent was ordered to answer within seventy-two hours and to indicate whether he preferred a formal investigation. He filed no answer and gave no reason for the failure, even after he was given an extension. In the meantime, his request for temporary assignment to another branch of the court was granted.

When at last he was given the chance to be heard, the respondent submitted a comment. He admitted having committed unintentional omission or mistake but denied acting intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously. On the March 31 incident, he admitted that after lunch on that day he took a bottle or two of beer, but claimed he was not a habitual drinker and that when he drinks he does so outside office hours; he said the quarrel with Gilbert Solis arose from a personal misunderstanding that was immediately patched up. On absences and tardiness, he claimed he filed the corresponding vacation or sick leave applications, that his absences were due to health reasons, and that he was sometimes tardy, especially on Mondays after weekends spent in his hometown, but only few and far between. He denied loafing, saying he took a few minutes of rest after work or during coffee breaks near the court buildings. He closed by saying he honestly believed he had conducted himself at his best, and that if his behavior prejudiced the service it was not intended and without malice.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the administrative charges of neglect of duty, misconduct, inefficiency, frequent unauthorized absences, tardiness, habitual drunkenness, refusal to perform official duty, insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Whether or not the respondent's failure to file an answer, and the explanations he later offered, are sufficient to exonerate him.
• Whether or not the penalty of fine is the proper sanction under the circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

The Court anchored the charges on the civil service law, which it cited as Presidential Decree Number 807, the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, and in particular on the enumeration of offenses in Rule 9, Section 36. The complainant invoked the following subsections of that provision:

Neglect of duty.

Misconduct.

Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.

Frequent unauthorized absences.

Tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours.

Habitual drunkenness.

Refusal to perform official duty.

Insubordination.

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

These are the very acts charged against the respondent, and the case turns on whether the record establishes them. The Executive Judge also acted pursuant to Section 40 of the same decree, which governs the summary disposition of disciplinary cases against civil service employees.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent liable as charged. It found his explanation unsatisfactory and observed that he was not able to refute the accusations made against him. Far from excusing him, the Court said, the reasons given in his comment were on the contrary demonstrative of whimsical and abusive acts of a government employee which are prejudicial to the best interest of the service. His own admissions, that he drank beer during the lunch break on the day of the incident and that he was sometimes tardy, confirmed rather than rebutted the complaint.

On the second issue, the respondent's failure to answer and his later explanations did not exonerate him. The Court weighed his comment and found it wanting, so that the sworn statements and documents submitted by the complainant stood as direct evidence against him.

On the third issue, the Court imposed a fine. Its reasoning rests on the special standard of conduct required of those who serve in the courts:

The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, like the courts below, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.

The Court added that a public office is a public trust and that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. It stressed that this Court cannot countenance any act or omission which diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.

Doctrine

Every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, bears a heavy burden of responsibility, and the conduct required of court personnel is stricter than that demanded of ordinary public employees. A public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. Acts and omissions that diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary will not be countenanced. An employee who fails to answer the charges and whose explanations do not refute them may be held liable on the complainant's sworn statements and documents, and the offenses enumerated in Rule 9, Section 36 of the Civil Service Decree, such as neglect of duty, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, are each a ground for administrative sanction.

Disposition

The Court held the respondent liable as charged and imposed on him a fine of four thousand pesos, payable to the Court within ten days from notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely, and ordered that a copy of the resolution be attached to his personal records.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the conduct of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. Examiners use this case in administrative law and judicial ethics to test the strict standard for court personnel and the rule that a public office is a public trust.