G.R. No. A.M. No. P-92-697. March 22, 1993.
JUDGE MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR., complainant, vs. ALBERTO D. ALMEIDA, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Judge Maximo Savellano, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 53, filed a letter-complaint dated March 20, 1992, charging his Process Server, Alberto D. Almeida, with grave misconduct. The complaint alleged that Almeida, without authorization, took exhibits consisting of packets of “shabu” (methamphetamine hydrochloride) from a steel cabinet in the custody of Branch Clerk of Court Rita E. Quizon. These exhibits were evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 91-95715 (People vs. Emmanuel Deveza) and 91-95716 (People vs. Carmencita Deveza). Judge Savellano reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which conducted an investigation and found Almeida responsible for the missing quantity of shabu.
On February 14, 1992, Judge Savellano issued a memorandum to Almeida, directing him to explain within 72 hours why he should not be dismissed for opening office cabinets without permission, taking out records and evidence, and possessing unauthorized keys to doors and cabinets despite a prior order to surrender all keys. Almeida received the memorandum on February 17, 1992, but thereafter did not regularly report for work. On March 2, 1992, Almeida belatedly filed an answer, admitting he opened the cabinet containing evidence but claimed it was merely out of curiosity. On April 14, 1992, Judge Savellano placed Almeida on preventive suspension.
The case was referred to Executive Judge Bernardo P. Pardo of the RTC of Manila for investigation, report, and recommendation. Initially, due to the unavailability of Branch Clerk of Court Quizon (who was abroad), and considering Almeida’s tender of resignation on October 19, 1992, Executive Judge Pardo recommended accepting the resignation effective February 28, 1993, lifting the preventive suspension, and releasing all monetary benefits to Almeida. However, upon Quizon’s return on December 7, 1992, the investigation was reopened.
During the investigation, court aide Ramon Orticio testified that on February 7, 1992, at about 4:15 p.m., he saw Almeida inside the courtroom with envelopes containing exhibits from the Deveza cases on top of the rostrum, and the following working day, the exhibits were found scattered. Branch Clerk of Court Quizon testified that on February 10, 1992, she found the shabu exhibits in disarray, with the packet opened and torn, and that Almeida admitted to opening them out of curiosity. A re-weighing of the shabu by the NBI showed a weight less than the original 40.363 grams.
In his statement to the NBI, Almeida admitted to being an occasional shabu user, starting in late 1991, and that he opened the exhibits out of curiosity to look at the crystals, as he ordinarily used shabu in powder form. However, in his testimony before Executive Judge Pardo, he claimed he merely checked the envelopes to see if anything was missing and then returned them.
Additionally, Judge Savellano reported that Almeida had collected P3,800.00 from a litigant, Efren Magsambol, for an injunction bond premium but failed to procure the bond, compelling Magsambol to secure it himself at additional cost. Almeida did not answer the memorandum regarding this matter despite receipt.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Alberto D. Almeida is guilty of grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent Alberto D. Almeida guilty of grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that the conduct of judges and court personnel must at all times be characterized by propriety, decorum, and must be above suspicion. Almeida’s unauthorized taking and opening of drug exhibits, coupled with his admission of being a shabu user and his improper collection of money from a litigant, constituted a grave abuse of confidence and violated the norm of public accountability under Section 7, Article XI of the Constitution. Such acts diminish the faith of the people in the administration of justice.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Alberto D. Almeida from the service effective April 14, 1992 (the date of his preventive suspension), with forfeiture of all benefits otherwise due him, except accrued leaves.