AM P 02 1552; (December, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-02-1552 December 3, 2002
Judge Antonio C. Reyes, complainant, vs. Alberto R. Vidor, Utility Worker I, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City, respondent.
FACTS
On September 7, 2000, Executive Judge Antonio C. Reyes issued a Memorandum suspending respondent Alberto R. Vidor, a Utility Worker I, for one month without pay effective September 8, 2000, for habitual drunkenness and displaying unruly behavior during office hours. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a copy and directed respondent to comment. In his comment, respondent admitted the charges, apologized, pleaded for a reduction of the suspension to one week, and promised not to repeat the acts. On September 20, 2000, Executive Judge Reyes issued an Order reconsidering and lifting the suspension, with a stern warning. The OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, evaluated the case, noting that the Executive Judge’s suspension could be considered a preventive suspension under Administrative Order No. 6, but that the lifting of the suspension did not free respondent from administrative sanction. The OCA recommended a fine of P1,000.00 and a reprimand. Both parties manifested their willingness to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Alberto R. Vidor should be administratively sanctioned for habitual drunkenness and unruly behavior during office hours.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of habitual drunkenness. The Court emphasized that the conduct of all court personnel must be circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. Habitual drunkenness is classified as a less grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. The Court found that Executive Judge Reyes had no authority to directly penalize respondent and could only recommend disciplinary sanctions. Considering respondent’s admission of guilt, his 27 years of service (a mitigating circumstance), and the one-week suspension he already served, the Court imposed the minimum penalty. Respondent is SUSPENDED for THIRTY-FIVE (35) DAYS WITHOUT MONEY BENEFITS, INCLUDING LEAVE CREDITS, with the one-week period already served deducted therefrom. He is sternly warned that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.