A.M. No. CA-02-12-P, May 2, 2002
RE: JOVELITA OLIVAS and ANTONIO CUYCO, Security Guard and Security Officer, respectively, Court of Appeals

FACTS

Jovelita Olivas, a security guard at the Court of Appeals, was charged with grave misconduct. A staff member reported seeing Olivas, during her midnight shift, take several pieces of plyboard from the CA compound on two consecutive mornings without permission. In her defense, Olivas claimed the plyboards were scrap materials she found near a garbage area, which she took home intending to use for a locker, and she expressed willingness to return them. Investigation revealed, however, that the taken plyboards were not segregated scrap and that a specific piece of plyboard was reported missing from the Maintenance Section.
Antonio Cuyco, the security officer on the same shift as Olivas, was charged with neglect of duty. The evidence showed that Cuyco was aware of Olivas’s actions, as she had informed him she gathered scrap for a locker and even showed him the plyboards. Despite this knowledge and being the senior officer on duty, Cuyco failed to report the incident or log it in the guard’s logbook. He instead claimed the responsibility to report fell on the next shift’s guard.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Jovelita Olivas and Antonio Cuyco are administratively liable.

RULING

Yes. The Court found Jovelita Olivas guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissed her from service. The act of taking government property, regardless of her claim that the items were scrap, constitutes dishonesty. As a security guard, her primary duty is to protect, not appropriate, court property. Her defense was untenable as the investigation established the plyboards were not officially discarded scrap. Her prior administrative infractions, which included previous suspensions, aggravated her offense, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal.
The Court found Antonio Cuyco guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and suspended him for three months and one day without pay. As the senior security officer on duty, he had a direct responsibility to report any irregularity, especially one involving a subordinate removing property. His admission of knowledge of Olivas’s acts, coupled with his failure to act on his duty to report or record the incident, constituted neglect. The penalty was tempered considering his 15 years of service and this being his first offense, but it underscores that vigilance and proactive reporting are essential functions of a security officer tasked with safeguarding court premises and assets.