AM 2011 07 SC; (October, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 2011-07-SC; October 4, 2011
SUPREME COURT, Complainant, vs. EDDIE V. DELGADO, UTILITY WORKER II, JOSEPH LAWRENCE M. MADEJA, CLERK IV, AND WILFREDO A. FLORENDO, UTILITY WORKER II, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, SECOND DIVISION, Respondents.
FACTS
On June 2, 2011, sealed Agendas containing the itemized lists of cases and the handwritten marginal notes of Justice Antonio T. Carpio from the Second Division’s sessions on May 30 and June 1, 2011, were transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court – Second Division (OCC-SD) for the preparation of draft minutes. The Agenda for the May 30 session was given to Utility Worker II Julius Irving C. Tanael for photocopying. After photocopying, Tanael gave the copies to respondent Eddie V. Delgado for stitching. Delgado later returned the stitched copies. Executive Assistant III Christine S. Puno subsequently observed Delgado acting suspiciously with pink-colored papers, similar to those used for Agendas, which he placed in his desk drawer. Suspicious, Puno and Tanael checked the copies and found that one copy (for the Agenda Division) was missing pages 58, 59, and 70. Pages 58 and 59 were later found hidden in Delgado’s desk drawer. An initial investigation was conducted by the Clerk of Court, Atty. Ma. Luisa L. Laurea. During this investigation, Delgado admitted removing the pages but claimed he did so as a favor to respondents Joseph Lawrence M. Madeja and Wilfredo A. Florendo, who had expressed interest in certain Agenda items. Madeja and Florendo admitted during the initial investigation that they asked for and obtained the pages. Madeja further admitted giving his copy to a clerk from another office, Melquiades S. Briones. Both Madeja and Florendo stated that court employees from other divisions had been requesting Agenda copies in exchange for tokens. A formal investigation was conducted by the Office of Administrative Services (OAS). In their written explanations and during formal hearings, Madeja and Florendo denied the admissions made during the initial investigation, while Delgado stood by his admissions. The OAS found Delgado guilty of Grave Misconduct and Madeja and Florendo guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, recommending Delgado’s dismissal and the suspension of Madeja and Florendo for six months.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Eddie V. Delgado, Joseph Lawrence M. Madeja, and Wilfredo A. Florendo are administratively liable for their actions concerning the unauthorized removal of pages from a confidential Supreme Court Agenda.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the OAS, with modifications regarding the penalties for respondents Madeja and Florendo.
1. Respondent Eddie V. Delgado is found guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. His act of unlawfully removing confidential documents (pages from the Agenda) constitutes a serious breach of trust and a flagrant disregard of established rules. As a casual employee, his appointment is terminated, and he is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.
2. Respondents Joseph Lawrence M. Madeja and Wilfredo A. Florendo are found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Their actions in soliciting and obtaining the confidential Agenda pages, and their admission of providing such documents to others in exchange for tokens, eroded public confidence in the judiciary and demonstrated a lack of the integrity required of court personnel. The Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service upon both Madeja and Florendo, with the same accessory penalties of forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave) and disqualification from re-employment. The Court deemed the OAS-recommended six-month suspension as too lenient, given the gravity of the offense which compromised the confidentiality and integrity of judicial processes. The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the highest standards of conduct to preserve public trust in the judiciary.