A.M. No. P-89-327; April 19, 1991
Atty. Thelma Garcia, petitioner, vs. Romeo Eullaran, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Thelma Garcia, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, filed a sworn complaint against Romeo Eullaran, a Staff Assistant II in the same court. The complaint enumerated multiple administrative charges under P.D. 807 (Civil Service Decree), including neglect of duty, misconduct, inefficiency, frequent unauthorized absences, habitual tardiness, habitual drunkenness, refusal to perform official duty, insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Specific allegations detailed an incident on March 31, 1989, where Eullaran entered the office drunk, fought with a co-employee, and disrupted office functions, alongside a pattern of absenteeism, tardiness, and disobedience to office directives.
The Executive Judge, acting pursuant to administrative orders, directed Eullaran to answer the complaint. Eullaran initially failed to file an answer, which the Judge interpreted as an admission of guilt, recommending summary proceedings. Later, given another opportunity to comment, Eullaran submitted a response. He admitted to some infractions, like the March 31 incident and occasional tardiness, but claimed these were unintentional, not habitual, and often due to health or personal reasons. He denied loafing and insisted he performed his duties to the best of his ability.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Romeo Eullaran is administratively liable for the various charges of misconduct and inefficiency in office.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Eullaran’s explanations unsatisfactory and insufficient to refute the serious accusations. His own admissions—confirming the drunken altercation, tardiness, and absenteeism—demonstrated whimsical and abusive conduct unbecoming a public servant. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, requiring the highest standards of accountability, especially for personnel in the judiciary, where conduct must be beyond reproach to maintain public confidence. Eullaran’s actions, constituting a pattern of neglect, insubordination, and disorderly behavior, were deemed prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court imposed a fine of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) with a stern warning that repetition would be met with more severe penalties. This resolution underscores the principle that court personnel must uphold the integrity and dignity of the judicial office at all times.