G.R. No. A.M. No. CA-15-33-P (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-CA-P), August 24, 2015
Teresita R. Marigomen, Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals, Manila, complainant, vs. Ronelo G. Labar, Driver, Mailing and Delivery Section, Court of Appeals, Cebu Station, respondent.

FACTS

On January 25, 2012, Atty. Lucila M. Cad-Enjambre, Assistant Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals Cebu Station (CA-Cebu), caught respondent Ronelo G. Labar, a driver, together with two co-terminous employees and an unidentified person, playing cards under a staircase adjoining the maintenance section’s working area. Money (twenty-peso bills and coins) was on the table with the cards. Atty. Cad-Enjambre issued a memorandum requiring Labar to explain. In his defense, Labar admitted he was playing cards after finishing his tasks, knew of the relevant office memorandum but forgot about it, apologized, and vowed not to repeat the act. He was formally charged with insubordination. After investigation, Atty. Cad-Enjambre recommended liability for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law, with a penalty of reprimand. Investigating Justice Gabriel T. Ingles recommended a finding of insubordination and a penalty of one month and one day suspension without pay. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with Justice Ingles’s recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Ronelo G. Labar should be held administratively liable for insubordination in violation of the office memorandum.

RULING

No. The Court found Labar guilty not of insubordination but of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law under Sections 52 (C) (3) and (5), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RURACCS). Insubordination requires a willful or intentional disregard of a lawful and reasonable order. The Court found no evidence that Labar’s presence in the maintenance area and his act of gambling were deliberate acts of defiance against the office memorandum. His admission that he forgot the rule, whether true or feigned, negated the element of willfulness required for insubordination. His acts, however, directly contravened the office memorandum (which prohibited unauthorized stays in the maintenance area and incorporated the Supreme Court’s prohibition against gambling in court premises) and the law. Considering his admission, apology, and that this was his first offense, the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.