EXECUTIVE JUDGE LEANDRO T. LOYAO, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. LOUCIANO P. ARMECIN, REYNATO O. CADAVOS, ALFREDO C. GALOZO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

Louciano P. Armecin, Clerk III; Alfredo
C. Galozo, Jr., Utility Worker II; and Reynato O. Cadavos, Utility
Worker I, were charged with Simple Misconduct and censured in a Report
dated July 27, 1998^[1] by
complainant Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr. for leaving their
posts at the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of
Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 24 without permission.

The report
was thereafter referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
which, after evaluation, recommended that: a.] the report of the
complainant executive judge be treated as an administrative charge
against the three respondents; b.] respondents be held guilty as
charged; and c.] respondents be administratively censured for their
misconduct with the stern warning that a repetition of the same or any
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

The Court
subsequently issued a Resolution dated August 2, 1999: a.] requiring the
respondents to manifest whether they are submitting the case for
decision within ten days from notice; and b.] docketing the case as a
regular administrative proceeding.

In compliance with the
foregoing directive, respondents filed a Manifestation on August 20,
1999 submitting the case for decision with prayer that the Court dismiss
the charges against them.

The Report of complainant Executive
Judge states that on July 23, 1998 at 3:00 p.m., respondents left the
office for personal purposes without asking permission from their
superior. Their absence allegedly left the entire office undermanned.

As a consequence, complainant Executive Judge issued Office Memorandum
No. OEJ-0-01-98 dated July 23, 1998 directing all respondents to explain
in writing within 72 hours from receipt why they should not be
administratively dealt with for their unauthorized absence in the office
and taking advantage of the leave of absence of Atty. Roman T. Galdo,
Clerk of Court at the Bulwagan ng Katarungan of Maasin,
Southern Leyte.

In compliance with Office Memorandum No.
OEJ-0-01-98, respondents jointly explained that in the morning of July
23, 1998, Sheriff Romulo G. Madredijo requested respondent Armecin to
buy food at the public market for his birthday party. At past noon,
Armecin proceeded to the public market to purchase fish and spices.
After lunch, respondents reported for work and recorded their time of
arrival at the office logbook.

Respondents further explained that
they left their co-workers Romulo G. Madredijo and Lolita R. Edilo at
the office and at around 3:00 p.m., they proceeded to Armecin’s house
located near the Provincial Capitol grounds to prepare, out of pakikisama,
the food they purchased earlier for Madredijo’s birthday. Shortly
thereafter, respondents brought the prepared food to the Bulwagan ng
Katarungan where the birthday party was to be held.

Stressing that pakikisama is a practice and tradition already
existing in the office, respondents clarified that they did not take
advantage of the leave of absence of the Clerk of Court and what they
did was only a way of expressing their felicitation to the celebrant
co-worker who was celebrating his 59th birthday.

Complainant
Executive Judge found the explanation of respondents unsatisfactory and
recommended the censure of the latter with the warning that a repetition
of the same or any other similar act in the future shall be dealt with
more severely. Complainant pointed out that respondents should have
sought his permission inasmuch as their immediate superior, Atty. Galdo,
was absent, adding that respondents need not leave the office during
working hours to prepare the food for the party after office hours.

More importantly, complainant reported that on the same day, they were
preparing the records of appealed cases to be reported to the Court
Administrator. However, the three (3) respondents seemingly did not show
any interest in finishing the said report but gave priority instead to a
personal favor for the sake of pakikisama.

The Court
finds that indeed respondents were remiss in their obligations as
judicial employees when they went out during office hours without asking
the permission of their superior. Their explanations that they went out
to buy and prepare food for the birthday celebration of their
officemate and that they did the same out of pakikisama  is
unsatisfactory and should not be countenanced.

While pakikisama
is a value deeply embedded in our tradition and mores that often
fosters harmony and good working relationships in the workplace,
carrying out its observance and practice to the degree where it
frustrates or prejudices the administration of justice should not be
tolerated.

Since the administration of justice is a sacred task,
the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard
of honesty, integrity and uprightness.^[2]  It bears stressing once again that public service
requires utmost integrity and the strictest discipline possible of every
public servant. A public office is a public trust that enjoins all
public officers and employees, particularly those serving in the
judiciary, to respond with the highest degree of dedication often even
beyond personal interest.^[3]
In this regard, it must be borne in mind that – 

…
the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct
and, official or otherwise, of the men and women, from the judge to the
least and lowest of its personnel, hence, it becomes the imperative
sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name
and standing as a true temple of justice.^[4]

“The conduct and behavior of
every person 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. His conduct, at all
times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but
also, and above all else, be above suspicion.”^[5] 

All too often, this Court has
declared that any act which falls short of the exacting standards for
public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the
image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced.^[6] To reiterate, public office is a public
trust. Public officers must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency.^[7] Needless to
state, respondents in their ill-advised alacrity to please a co-worker
and a misplaced sense of pakikisama, ran afoul of such
standards. Only recently in Office of the Court Administrator v.
Sheriff IV Julius G. Cabe, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar,^[8] the Court said – 

Time and again, we have emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility
which court personnel are saddled with in view of their exalted
positions as keepers of public faith. They must be constantly reminded
that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the
performance of official functions must be avoided. As we have held in
the case of Mendoza vs. Mabutas,^[9] this Court condemns and would never countenance such
conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the
administration of justice which would violate the norm of public
accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of
the people in the Judiciary.

WHEREFORE,
respondents Louciano P. Armecin, Clerk III, Alfredo C. Galozo, Jr.,
Utility Worker II and Reynato O. Cadavos, Utility Worker I of the Office
of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Leyte,
Branch 24 are hereby CENSURED for their misconduct and
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED. 

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo,
JJ., concur.  
 

---

^[1]
Rollo, p. 1.

^[2]
Anonymous v. Geverola, 279 SCRA 279 (1997), citing Basco v. Gregorio,
245 SCRA 614 (1995) 

^[3]
Re: Report of Senior Chief Staff Officer Antonina A. Soria, 299 SCRA 63
(1998), citing Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officers and
Employees; Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of
Cases in MTC of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, 276 SCRA 257 (1997) reiterating
JDF Anomaly in the RTC of Ligao, Albay, 255 SCRA 221 (1996) and Gamo v.
Leonen, 232 SCRA 98 (1994) 

^[4]
Antonio Yu Asensi v. Judge Francisco D. Villanueva, MTC, Branch 36,
Quezon City, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245, 19 January 2000, p. 18, citing Re:
Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in MTC of
Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, 276 SCRA 257 (1997), citing Miro v. Tan, 235
SCRA 400 (1994), citing Recto v. Raulis, 70 SCRA 438 (1976) 

^[5] Wilfredo F. Araza v. Sheriffs
Marlon M. Garcia and Nicolas A. Tonga, A.M. No. P-00-1363, 8 February
2000, p. 9, citing Banogon v. Arias, 274 SCRA 17 (1997) 

^[6] Re: Absence Without Official
Leave (AWOL) Of Antonio Macalintal, Process Server, Office of the Clerk
of Court, A.M. No. 99-11-06-SC, 15 February 2000, p. 4. 

^[7] Ibid., citing
Rangel-Roque v. Rivota, 302 SCRA 502 (1999), citing Gano v. Leonen,
supra. 

^[8] A.M. No.
P-96-1185, 26 June 2000, p. 12. 

^[9] 223 SCRA 411 (1993), citing Sy v. Academia, 198 SCRA 705
(1991).