AM P 05 1982; (August, 2007) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-1982; August 28, 2007
Judge Juanita C. Tienzo, Complainant, vs. Dominador R. Florendo, Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court of Lupao, Nueva Ecija, Respondent.
FACTS
Judge Juanita C. Tienzo, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Lupao, Nueva Ecija, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Dominador R. Florendo, a Clerk II in the same court. The complaint charged Florendo with gambling during office hours and conduct unbecoming a government employee. Specifically, Judge Tienzo reported that she had caught Florendo playing “tong-it,” a game of chance, in a hut at the back of the municipal building on August 26, 2003, despite previous warnings. The complaint also alleged that Florendo had revealed confidential court matters, such as information regarding the issuance of warrants of arrest. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued three directives requiring Florendo to file his comment on the charges. Registry return receipts confirmed his receipt of these orders, but he failed to submit any comment or explanation in his defense.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Dominador R. Florendo is administratively liable for the acts charged, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court found respondent Dominador R. Florendo guilty of gambling during office hours. The Court agreed with the OCA’s factual findings but modified the recommended penalty. The OCA, citing Section 52(c)(5), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules, recommended dismissal for a third offense of gambling. The Court clarified that the concept of a “third offense” under the rules refers to a third final judgment of guilt after formal charges, not merely to three instances of misconduct where the employee was only warned. In this case, Florendo was merely warned for the first two infractions; formal administrative charges were initiated only after the third incident. Therefore, for disciplinary purposes, this constituted his first formal offense.
However, the Court emphasized that it would not trivialize the misconduct. Florendo defied direct warnings from his superior, failed to apologize or reform, and exhibited contempt for the proceedings by ignoring the OCA’s directives to comment. Considering the gravity of gambling as a vice that undermines public trust and the judiciary’s integrity, and the need to uphold the highest ethical standards for court personnel under Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards), a mere reprimand was deemed insufficient. The Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months of his basic salary and issued a stern warning against repeating such conduct. The charge regarding revealing confidential matters was not substantiated with sufficient evidence in the ruling.