A.M. No. P-99-1329; August 1, 2000
Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., complainant, vs. Louciano P. Armecin, Reynato O. Cadavos, Alfredo C. Galozo, Jr., respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr. charged respondents Louciano P. Armecin (Clerk III), Reynato O. Cadavos (Utility Worker I), and Alfredo C. Galozo, Jr. (Utility Worker II) with Simple Misconduct for leaving their posts at the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Maasin, Southern Leyte, without permission on July 23, 1998, at 3:00 p.m. The judge’s report stated their unauthorized absence left the office undermanned while they were preparing records of appealed cases for submission to the Court Administrator. An office memorandum required them to explain their absence.
In their joint explanation, respondents stated that in the morning, Sheriff Romulo G. Madredijo requested Armecin to buy food for his birthday party. After lunch and reporting back to work, they left the office at 3:00 p.m. to prepare the purchased food at Armecin’s nearby house, intending to bring it to the office for the after-hours celebration. They claimed they left co-workers behind, acted out of “pakikisama” (camaraderie), and did not take advantage of their immediate superior’s absence. The Executive Judge found this explanation unsatisfactory.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for Simple Misconduct for leaving their posts without permission during office hours.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Court found respondents remiss in their duties as judicial employees. Their defense of “pakikisama” is unsatisfactory and cannot justify their actions. While pakikisama fosters workplace harmony, its observance must not frustrate or prejudice the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that the judiciary’s integrity demands the highest standards of conduct from all personnel. Public office is a public trust, requiring utmost responsibility, integrity, and efficiency.
Court personnel are keepers of public faith, and any act of impropriety or negligence that diminishes public confidence in the judiciary cannot be countenanced. By prioritizing a personal favor over official duties—especially during a critical task like preparing court reports—respondents failed to meet the exacting standards required of them. Their misplaced sense of camaraderie directly conflicted with their obligation to serve the public with dedication beyond personal interest.
Consequently, the Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation. Respondents Louciano P. Armecin, Reynato O. Cadavos, and Alfredo C. Galozo, Jr. are hereby CENSURED for Simple Misconduct and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.