RE: ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED DIGGING

Re: Illegal and Unauthorized Digging and Excavation Activities Inside the Supreme Court Compound, Baguio City

A.M.  No. 2016-03-SC/ A.M. No.16R06-07-SC

February 21, 2017

FACTS:

This administrative matter refers to the illegal and unauthorized digging and excavation activities inside the Supreme Court Compound in Baguio City (SC Compound-BC).

The present case is rooted on a complain dated January 6, 2016 filed by Elvie A. Carbonel (Carbonel), casual Utility Worker II, Maintenance Unit, SC Compound-BC, before the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) against Engr. Teofilo G. Sanchez (Engr. Sanchez), SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer and Officer-in-Charge of the Maintenance Unit, and Edgardo Z. Hallera (Hallera), casual Utility Worker II of the same unit, for grave misconduct relating to the illegal and unauthorized digging and excavation activity allegedly conducted outside the cottages of Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., (Cottage J) and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., (Cottage F).

The complaint alleged that: first, Engr. Sanchez ordered Hallera to conduct excavation activities near the Cottages F and J to search for hidden Japanese treasures; and second, due to the said excavation activities in the area, the structural soundness of the foundation of the cottages was compromised.

On January 8, 2016, the OAS sent a three-man team composed of its personnel to the SC Compound-BC to determine the veracity of the complaint. The team found no apparent signs of disturbance on the ground or traces of recent excavation and excavated soil on the site during its initial investigation; nevertheless, it recommended that a formal investigation be conducted after several employees admitted that there was a hole which was deliberately concealed by Hallera.

On January 11, 2016, the OAS furnished Engr. Sanchez and Hallera with a copy of the complaint and directed them to submit their respective comments within five days from notice.

In his Memorandum dated January 14, 2016, Engr. Sanchez categorically denied that he surreptitiously ordered Hallera to dig and excavate within the compound to search for hidden Japanese treasures. He insisted that Carbonel made exaggerations as to the depth of the hole, considering that only the tip of the ten-foot high ladder is shown in the photograph. He also doubted Carbonel's allegation that the structural soundness of the cottages was affected by the excavation activities, since the latter is no expert on building structures and foundations.

Hallera likewise denied the accusations hurled against him in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated January 14, 2016. He explained that he dug a hole near Cottage J with a depth of four feet in order to get fertile soil for use in the garden, but he claimed that the excavation could not have compromised the structural soundness and stability of the cottage.

Aside from the internal investigation conducted by the OAS, the matter also became the subject of a separate investigation of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), through its regional office in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), Baguio City, in response to the Letter dated March 1, 2016 of Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, requesting assistance for the conduct of an independent investigation regarding the alleged unauthorized digging and excavation activities within the SC Compound-BC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Hallera and Carbonel and Engr. Sanchez administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service

RULING:

Yes. After a careful review of the records of the case, we find reasonable grounds to hold Hallera and Carbonel administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and Engr. Sanchez for simple neglect of duty.

"Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." To constitute as grave misconduct, ''the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence."

Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, is present when an official or fiduciary person unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

For misconduct to warrant removal from office of an officer, the act should directly relate to or be com1ected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer amounting either to maladministration or to willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office.

In the present case, it is clear that Hallera and Carbonel took advantage of their positions as casual utility workers assigned as the caretakers of Cottages J and F, respectively, in order to engage in treasure-hunting activities in search for hidden Japanese treasures on the SC Compound-BC grounds. These actions could only have been perpetrated for their own personal em1chment, considering that such activities were covertly carried out without the knowledge and permission of the Court.

Note, too, that when Hallera and Carbonel engaged in these treasure-hunting activities, they violated Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which mandates court personnel to perform their official duties properly and with diligence at all times and to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.

Consequently, we hold Hallera and Carbonel administratively liable for grave misconduct for participating in illegal and unauthorized digging and excavation activities within the SC Compound-BC, and for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as their actions unquestionably tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office.

Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) classifies grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as grave offenses, with the corresponding penalties of dismissal from the service, and suspension of six (6) months and one (l) day to one (1) year for the first offense, respectively.

As for the administrative liability of Engr. Sanchez, we find him guilty of simple neglect of duty for his failure to act appropriately upon having been informed about the unauthorized excavation activities near Cottage J. It is simply inexcusable that upon learning of the existence of the digging site near the cottage, he directed the site's immediate closure without initiating an investigation on the matter to determine whether those involved in the excavation activities should be administratively sanctioned, or at the very least, without reporting the incident to higher management for proper action.

"Simple neglect of duty x x x signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference." It is classified as a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. Given his record of having been previously fined in the amount of ₱5,000.00 for simple neglect of duty in an earlier case, and severely warned for failure to observe the established procedure in the purchase of equipment for the use of the Court, the imposable penalty for this second offense against Engr. Sanchez is dismissal from the service.