JUDGE JUANITA C. TIENZO, COMPLAINANT, VS. DOMINADOR R. FLORENDO, CLERK II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF LUPAO, NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENT.

Tienzo versus Florendo

The Case

This is an administrative matter brought by Judge Juanita C. Tienzo, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Lupao, Nueva Ecija, against Dominador R. Florendo, a Clerk Two of the same court. The judge charges the clerk with gambling during office hours and with conduct unbecoming a government employee. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of a "third offense" in the civil service disciplinary rules, and because it shows how the Supreme Court calibrates the penalty for a court employee who defies his superior and ignores the very proceedings against him.

Procedural History

The matter began in the Supreme Court itself, through a memorandum of Judge Tienzo dated September 3, 2003, addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator sent the respondent three directives: a first indorsement dated October 16, 2003 requiring a comment within ten days; a first tracer dated March 11, 2004 requiring a comment within five days; and a second indorsement dated July 2, 2004 requiring a comment and an explanation for his failure to comply with the two earlier directives. The registry return receipts show that the respondent received all three, yet he never submitted a comment. On the basis of the available records, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a finding of guilt for illegal gambling during office hours, with the penalty of dismissal but without forfeiture of retirement benefits and leave credits, citing the civil service rule that prescribes dismissal for gambling on a third offense. The Supreme Court, in this original administrative proceeding, agreed on the question of guilt but disagreed on the penalty.

Facts

On August 26, 2003, Judge Tienzo caught the respondent playing a game of chance called "tong-it" in a hut at the back of the municipal building of Lupao. This was not the first time. The judge had previously warned him against the same act, and the incident she witnessed was, by her account, the third time he had repeated it.

Because of this, the judge directed the respondent to report in the office from eight o'clock in the morning to twelve o'clock noon and from one o'clock to five o'clock in the afternoon. She also warned him to refrain from revealing confidential matters of the office, specifically from giving information about the issuance of a warrant of arrest to persons accused of a crime, and from relaying fake information to people within the jurisdiction of the court.

When the charge reached the Office of the Court Administrator, the respondent was given every opportunity to answer. He received each of the three directives sent to him, but he never filed a comment, not even up to the time the case was decided. The records further show that for the first two gambling infractions he appeared to have committed, he was never formally charged; the judge merely warned him, apparently hoping he would reform.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gambling during office hours and of conduct unbecoming a government employee.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal for a third offense under the civil service rules may be imposed on the respondent, given that he was formally charged only after the third gambling incident.
• Whether or not a fine, with a warning, is the appropriate penalty under the circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52, paragraph c, item 5, Rule Four of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases provides:

5. Gambling prohibited by law 1st Offense - Reprimand; 2nd Offense - Suspension for 1-30 days; 3rd Offense - Dismissal.

This is the provision the Office of the Court Administrator invoked to recommend dismissal, and the provision the Court had to construe because the respondent had been warned three times but formally charged only once.

Republic Act Number 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, is also invoked by the Court, which notes that it enunciates the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and responsibility in the public service. The Court uses it to stress that no other office in the government exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than the judiciary.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent guilty of gambling during office hours. The evidence came from the complaining judge herself, and the respondent never bothered to deny it despite three directives from the Office of the Court Administrator.

On the second issue, the Court refused to apply the penalty of dismissal. It held that when the rule speaks of a "third offense," the reference is to a third final judgment of guilt after the erring officer has been duly charged with gambling. Here, the respondent was thrice warned, but for the first two infractions he was never formally charged; he was merely warned. The Court observed that Judge Tienzo appeared open to the prospect of reform and desisted from taking official action. Since the respondent was formally charged only after the third incident, the dismissal penalty cannot strictly apply, and for all intents and purposes the case is his first gambling offense.

On the third issue, the Court held that a mere reprimand would trivialize the misconduct. The respondent defied the warnings of his superior, never apologized to the complaining judge, and did not even submit a comment after being repeatedly required to do so. The Court stressed that court officials and employees carry a heavy burden of public accountability, that gambling is a pernicious practice, the offspring of idleness and the prolific parent of vice and immorality, and that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct of the men and women at its helm. A fine with a warning was therefore appropriate.

Doctrine

First, in the civil service rules on gambling, a "third offense" means a third final judgment of guilt after the officer has been duly charged, not merely a third warning. Prior warnings without formal charges do not count as prior offenses.

Second, the penalty must still fit the misconduct. Where the strict penalty does not apply but the employee defied warnings and ignored the administrative proceedings, a fine equivalent to three months of basic salary, with a warning, is proper.

Third, every employee of the judiciary, from the lowliest to the highest, must live up to the most exacting standard of honesty, integrity, and uprightness under Republic Act Number 6713, because the image of a court of justice is mirrored in their conduct.

Disposition

The respondent was found guilty of gambling during office hours and was fined an amount equivalent to his three months basic salary, with a warning against a repetition of the improper conduct.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a "third offense" under the civil service rules requires a third final judgment of guilt after a formal charge, so warnings alone do not trigger dismissal. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between warnings and formal charges, and to test the penalty for a court employee who gambles on duty and defies his superior.