A.M. No. 2007-09-SC; July 12, 2007
RE: REPORT ON THE ALLEGED THEFT OF ELECTRICAL WIRES

FACTS

This administrative matter concerns two reported incidents of missing electrical wires from the Supreme Court premises along Taft Avenue. The first incident was discovered on September 27, 2006. Investigation revealed that about 20 meters of wire were cut from a feeder line for perimeter spotlights. Security Guard Michael Fajardo, initially assigned to the Taft-Faura post, had been reassigned to the basketball court area by Assistant Shift In-charge Fernando Lastica, leaving the post unmanned. Fajardo failed to report the loss in his end-of-duty report, while Lastica recorded it in the security logbook. The second incident was noted on September 30, 2006. During the investigation, it was discovered that the logbook page containing the reports for September 29 and 30 from the Taft-Faura post was missing. Danilo Pablo, Chief of the Security Division, directed the guards to rewrite their reports on a new page to restore the record.

ISSUE

Whether the involved court personnel should be held administratively liable for negligence and procedural lapses in connection with the theft incidents and the missing logbook page.

RULING

The Court found several personnel administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. For the first incident, ASIC Fernando Lastica was reprimanded for reassigning a guard without ensuring the post remained secured, creating a security lapse. Guard Michael Fajardo was warned for failing to report the incident in his duty report, violating the standard procedure that all occurrences must be reported regardless of prior entries by others. For the second incident, Chief Security Officer Danilo Pablo was found guilty of simple neglect of duty. While the act of restoring the lost logbook page was not irregular per se, his failure to immediately and formally report the loss of the page itself demonstrated ineptness and a lapse in security protocol. As the division chief, he bears responsibility for systemic failures. The legal logic hinges on the fundamental duty of court personnel, especially those in security, to exercise due diligence and adhere strictly to procedures to protect court property and maintain order. Their negligence, though not amounting to grave misconduct, fell short of the required standard of care. The Security Division as a whole was also warned and reminded of its fundamental responsibilities.