Jovita B. Lamsis vs. Jude F. Sales, Sr., Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, La Trinidad, Benguet
FACTS
Complainant Jovita B. Lamsis, a janitress employed by an independent contractor and assigned to the Hall of Justice in Benguet, alleged that on October 6, 2012, respondent Jude F. Sales, Sr., a Process Server of the RTC, approached her from behind while she was collecting garbage. When she turned, she saw respondent holding and exposing his private organ to her. Shocked, she called him “bastos” and fled. She reported the incident after two days. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming he was elsewhere in the office and suggesting the complaint was retaliatory for a separate case he filed against her. The complaint was initially referred to the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI).
The CODI found complainant’s allegations credible, noting respondent had been criminally convicted of Unjust Vexation for the same act. However, the CODI ruled respondent could not be held administratively liable for sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877 due to the absence of moral ascendancy over the complainant, who was not a subordinate but a contractual employee of a different agency. Nevertheless, the CODI found the act constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) later noted this was respondent’s second offense for the same type of misconduct.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court affirmed the OCA’s findings and recommendation. While the element of moral ascendancy required for sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877 was lacking, respondent’s deliberate act of exposing his private organ to the complainant constitutes willful, flagrant, and shameless behavior that violates the basic norms of decency, morality, and decorum expected of public servants. This act is classified as disgraceful and immoral conduct under civil service rules.
The legal logic proceeds from the definition of immoral conduct as behavior indicative of indecency and moral indifference, which is a grave offense under the Civil Service Rules. The Court gives weight to the CODI’s factual finding, which deemed the complainant’s account credible and was bolstered by respondent’s criminal conviction for Unjust Vexation arising from the same incident. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule on administrative penalties for subsequent offenses. Records showed respondent had a prior administrative conviction for a similar offense of immoral and disgraceful conduct in A.M. No. P-14-3267. For a second offense of the same grave nature, the prescribed penalty is dismissal. Consequently, respondent is dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government.
