AM 03 11 29 SC; (June, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. 03-11-29-SC; June 8, 2005
RE: REPORT OF MR. DOMINADOR P. ITLIONG, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BAGUIO CITY
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from an incident on September 20, 2003, where reporter Henry Omaga Diaz and a cameraman from ABS-CBN entered the Supreme Court premises in Baguio City without prior permission and took video footage of the ongoing construction of cottages for the Justices. The guards on duty, Stevenson V. Tugas, Sr. and Arturo C. Villanueva, initially denied the media personnel entry at the main gate. However, Diaz and his cameraman subsequently gained access through a private, inconspicuous passageway located at the back of the compound, which was near the residence of the Officer-in-Charge, Dominador P. Itliong. An investigation revealed that Guard Villanueva was the one who informed Diaz about this alternative route. The incident was not recorded in the security logbook, and Guard Tugas, who later escorted Diaz out, admitted he did not immediately report the matter as he was “trying to protect the Court.”
ISSUE
Whether Security Guards Arturo C. Villanueva and Stevenson V. Tugas, Sr. are administratively liable for the unauthorized entry of media personnel into the Supreme Court compound in Baguio City.
RULING
Yes, the Court found both security guards guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The legal logic rests on the fundamental obligation of security personnel to exercise due diligence in protecting court premises. The investigation established that the passageway used was not readily visible from the main road and could only be found if specifically directed to it. Villanueva’s act of divulging the existence of this private passageway to the reporter constituted a direct failure to secure the area. Tugas, despite his initial denial of entry, failed to promptly report the breach and even engaged in a conversation with the intruder, demonstrating carelessness in his duty to respond to and document security incidents. Their collective failure to act with the required vigilance and to log the incident breached the standard of care expected of court security personnel. For this less grave offense, and considering their years of service and lack of prior infractions as mitigating factors, the Court imposed the minimum penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning.