A.M. No. SB-12-18-P; June 13, 2012
SHIRLEY C. DIOMAMPO, Records Officer II, Sandiganbayan, Complainant, vs. FELIPE C. LARIBO, JR., Shuttle Bus Driver, Sandiganbayan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Shirley C. Diomampo, a Records Officer II at the Sandiganbayan, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Felipe C. Laribo, Jr., a Shuttle Bus Driver of the same court. The complaint alleged dishonesty, unethical behavior, and misconduct. Diomampo accused Laribo of uttering malicious and degrading words about her to co-employees, specifically stating in Filipino that he had sexual relations with her and that she therefore had no right to act proudly towards him. These statements were relayed to Diomampo by court security guards who executed supporting affidavits.
In the investigation conducted by designated Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo, Laribo admitted to uttering the remarks but claimed they were made in jest and in good faith during a private conversation. He begged for forgiveness and emphasized it was his first infraction. Diomampo also alleged receiving a derogatory text message from a number associated with Laribo, which he attributed to his child.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Felipe C. Laribo, Jr. is administratively liable for his conduct, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Laribo guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The legal logic proceeds from the fundamental standard that every employee of the judiciary must adhere to the highest standards of propriety and decency. Laribo’s admission to uttering the malicious words established the factual basis for liability. The Court rejected his defense that the statements were made in jest, noting the utterances were prejudicial to a woman’s reputation and were made in her absence, negating any claim of good-faith joking.
The act constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct as defined by Civil Service rules—a willful act violating basic norms of decency and showing moral indifference to community opinion. Such conduct is classified as a grave offense. While the Investigating Justice recommended a reprimand and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a three-month suspension, the Supreme Court imposed a one-month suspension. The Court balanced the gravity of the offense with mitigating factors, including Laribo’s admission of guilt, his plea for forgiveness, his length of service, and the absence of prior offenses. The penalty serves as a stern warning that court personnel must uphold dignity and respect in the workplace, with a repetition to be dealt with more severely.