A.M. No. SB-04-12-P ; June 27, 2006
Alberto P. Abogado, Jr., Security Officer I, Complainant, vs. Ferdinand L. Gurtiza, Security Guard III, and Elberto Q. Bautista, Security Guard II, Sandiganbayan, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Alberto P. Abogado, Jr., Security Officer I and Officer-in-Charge, alleged that on October 31, 2003, while he was on night duty at the Sandiganbayan, respondent Ferdinand Gurtiza, who appeared drunk, shouted expletives at him and then punched him in the jaw. The altercation was reportedly pacified by other security personnel. Abogado further alleged that respondent Elberto Bautista later removed an entire page from the official logbook where Abogado had made a notation about a security lapse. An initial investigation report by Security Officer Ernesto Estrada supported these allegations and also indicated that respondents were drinking liquor while on duty.
In their defense, Gurtiza denied being drunk and claimed it was Abogado who initiated the confrontation, leading him to lunge at Abogado in anger, but he asserted he only hit a colleague who intervened. Bautista denied abandoning his post or removing any logbook page, submitting a machine copy of the allegedly removed page to prove its existence. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the case for a formal investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Ferdinand Gurtiza and Elberto Bautista are administratively liable for misconduct.

RULING

Yes, but only respondent Ferdinand Gurtiza was found liable for simple misconduct. The Court adopted the findings of the OCA Consultant, who concluded that the charge of drunkenness was not substantiated by substantial evidence. The consultant noted the complainant’s failure to present corroborating witnesses and deemed the initial investigation report hearsay, as it denied respondents their right to counsel and to be informed of the accusations. However, Gurtiza’s own counter-affidavit constituted an admission that he lost his temper and attempted to punch the complainant. This voluntary admission established that he failed to uphold the decorum and self-restraint required of court personnel, constituting simple misconduct.
Regarding respondent Bautista, the charge of removing the logbook page was not proven. The submission of a machine copy of the page successfully cast doubt on the allegation, leading to its dismissal for lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that while Gurtiza’s act did not involve corruption or a willful intent to violate the law, it nonetheless displayed a lack of propriety. Consequently, Gurtiza was suspended for one month and one day without pay, with a warning. Bautista was exonerated. The Court also advised the Sandiganbayan’s security chief to enhance supervision of nighttime personnel.