RE : REPORT OF MR. DOMINADOR P. ITLIONG, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BAGUIO CITY

Re: Report of Mr. Dominador P. Itliong

The Case

This is an administrative matter that began not with a complaint but with a report. Dominador Itliong, the officer-in-charge of the Supreme Court compound in Baguio City, reported to the Office of Administrative Services that a television reporter and his cameraman had entered the Court premises without permission and filmed the ongoing construction of cottages for the Justices. The question the Court ultimately resolved was not whether the media may film, but whether the security guards on duty were administratively liable for allowing that entry through a private passageway and for concealing it. The case matters to a reviewee because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by the humblest personnel of the Judiciary, and because it applies the civil service rule on simple neglect of duty with precision.

Procedural History

The matter arose from two reports submitted by Itliong to the Office of Administrative Services, a report dated September 27, 2003 and a supplemental report dated October 1, 2003. An investigation was conducted at the Baguio office by the Assistant Chief of Office and an investigator of the Security Division. In a memorandum dated November 17, 2003, the Chief Administrative Officer found both guards guilty of simple neglect of duty and recommended suspension of one month each without pay. In compliance with a resolution of the Court, a further investigation was held in January 2004, and in a memorandum dated January 29, 2004 the same recommendation was reiterated. The matter then reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in its decision of June 2005.

Facts

At around two o'clock in the afternoon of September 20, 2003, Henry Omaga Diaz, a reporter of a television network, accompanied by a cameraman, sought permission to enter the Court premises in Baguio City and was denied entry. When a delivery van entered, the two slipped in. They tried to reach the area of the cottages but were again denied access by Stevenson Tugas, the detailed gate guard for the second shift. At around four thirty-five in the afternoon, however, Diaz and the cameraman moved further through a pathway at the back of the compound and began taking footage of the construction. Diaz even interviewed one of the workers.

It turned out that Arturo Villanueva, the detailed roving guard, had told Diaz about that back passageway. The contractor's logbook recorded that the filming lasted about twenty minutes, yet the incident was never entered in the security guards' logbook. Instead, the logbook stated that there was no untoward incident to be noted within the duration of their duties. Tugas did not report the matter to Itliong or to the shift supervisor. When asked why, he said he was trying to protect the Court. Itliong observed that the passageway was not readily visible to passersby and could not be guessed unless one was specifically directed to it.

In their joint explanation, Tugas and Villanueva claimed that they had denied Diaz entry and that they responded only when informed that the two were in the vicinity, by which time Diaz and the cameraman were already leaving through the back gate. They described that gate as vulnerable because it had no security padlock, no control sign, and was used as an access point by the officer-in-charge and his family. The investigation concluded that Diaz gained entry through the neglect of both guards, since the passageway could not be seen from the main road unless one was specifically directed to it.

Issues

• Whether or not Villanueva and Tugas are administratively liable for simple neglect of duty for their laxity in securing the premises of the Court.
• Whether or not their deliberate failure to enter the incident in the security logbook and their failure to report it immediately to their supervisor constitute simple neglect of duty.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay is the proper penalty under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides:

Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.

This is the standard of conduct the Court measured the guards against, and their laxity fell short of it.

Rule IV, Section 52(B) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, in relation to Rule XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, provides for the penalty for simple neglect of duty. The Court described the rule thus:

Under Rule IV, Section 52(B) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service in correlation with Rule XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, the penalty for simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense, is suspension for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first violation.

This fixes the range from which the Court drew the penalty.

Section 54 of the same Uniform Rules provides:

The minimum penalty shall be imposed where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present.

This is why the Court imposed the lowest penalty in the range rather than a heavier one.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that both guards were guilty of simple neglect of duty. As Court guards, they were duty-bound to perform their duties with skill and diligence, particularly where the safety or interests of court personnel may be jeopardized by their neglect or cavalier attitude. The Court stressed that the conduct of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. The presence of non-court personnel in the compound, who had no official business there, should have alerted them to be more vigilant. Villanueva and Tugas failed to exercise the strict standards required of all security officers in the Judiciary.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that Tugas was not only remiss but violated the confidence reposed in him by deliberately failing to enter the incident in the logbook and failing to inform his supervisor, and by instead recording that there was no untoward incident when in fact there was. The Court defined the offense:

Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.

On the third issue, the Court applied the range of one month and one day to six months for a first violation, and applied Section 54 because only mitigating circumstances were present. Villanueva had rendered sixteen years of service and Tugas four years, both with no prior derogatory record, so the minimum penalty was warranted.

Doctrine

First, the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Second, simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. Third, under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable for a first violation by suspension of one month and one day to six months, and where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present, the minimum penalty shall be imposed. Fourth, Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence, as Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel commands.

Disposition

The Court found Arturo Villanueva and Stevenson Tugas guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended each of them for one month and one day without pay, with a warning that the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the definition: simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. Examiners use this case to test the penalty range for a less grave offense and the rule that the minimum penalty is imposed where only mitigating circumstances are present.