G.R. No.: A.M. No. CA-15-31-P (formerly OCA LP.I. No. 13-218-CA-P)
Date: January 12, 2016

Case Parties: COMMITTEE ON SECURITY and SAFETY, COURT OF APPEALS, Complainant, vs. REYNALDO V. DIANCO – Chief Security, JOVEN O. SORIANOSOS – Security Guard 3, and ABELARDO P. CATBAGAN – Security Guard 3, Respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from incidents during the Court of Appeals (CA) Security Guards’ excursion on March 19, 2011, involving the padding of the food bill and violation of the prohibition on drinking alcohol. The CA Committee on Security and Safety filed the complaint. In a Decision dated June 16, 2015, the Court en banc found respondents administratively liable: Reynaldo V. Dianco (Chief Security) for serious dishonesty and grave misconduct; Joven O. Sorianosos (Security Guard 3) for less serious dishonesty and simple misconduct; and Abelardo P. Catbagan (Security Guard 3) for simple neglect of duty. The Court imposed the following penalties: dismissal from service with accessory penalties on Dianco; nine months suspension on Sorianosos; and one month and one day suspension on Catbagan. All three respondents filed separate motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the motions for reconsideration filed by respondents Reynaldo V. Dianco, Joven O. Sorianosos, and Abelardo P. Catbagan should be granted, leading to a modification or reversal of the Court’s June 16, 2015 Decision.

RULING

The Court GRANTED the motions for reconsideration and RECONSIDERED its Decision of June 16, 2015.
1. Regarding Respondents Catbagan and Sorianosos: The administrative case against them was declared already closed and terminated. The Court found that prior to the Supreme Court’s intervention, the CA had already imposed final administrative penalties on them through memoranda dated November 5 and 6, 2013 (which informed them of the Investigation Report and penalty recommendations) and January 6, 2014 (which implemented Sorianosos’s suspension). Sorianosos was suspended for thirty (30) days without pay, which he served. Catbagan was penalized with a reprimand. Neither filed a motion for reconsideration of these CA-imposed penalties. Under Section 45, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), a penalty of suspension for not more than thirty days is final and executory if no motion for reconsideration is filed. Furthermore, a CA indorsement dated October 31, 2013, referred to the Office of the Court Administrator only the findings and recommendation concerning respondent Dianco, indicating the CA considered the cases against Sorianosos and Catbagan concluded.
2. Regarding Respondent Dianco: The Court modified the penalty imposed on him. While sustaining its finding that Dianco is guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct—offenses warranting dismissal even for a first offense—the Court reduced his penalty. Applying judicial clemency and considering mitigating circumstances (including his admission of the offense, expression of remorse, promise not to repeat the offense, length of service, restitution of the amount involved, and humanitarian considerations such as his age, health, and family circumstances), the Court substituted the penalty of dismissal. Reynaldo V. Dianco is instead meted a suspension of one (1) year without pay and demotion. Upon his return from suspension, he is permanently demoted to the position of Information Officer II (Grade Level 15) at the Information and Statistical Division of the Court of Appeals, with a stern warning.