G.R. No. 197745 , September 6, 2017
Atty. Melita S. Recto-Sambajon, Petitioner, vs. Public Attorney’s Office, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Melita S. Recto-Sambajon, a Public Attorney IV, was reassigned from the PAO Central Office to a Valenzuela City office. On June 17, 2009, she was summoned by Chief Public Attorney Persida Rueda-Acosta regarding her reaction to the reassignment. During this meeting, overcome by emotion, she uttered a threatening statement: “Yung mga naghahatid [ng] maling impormasyon kay Chief ay paduduguin ko ang mata.” This was witnessed by several PAO personnel. The following day, she confronted another attorney, reiterating a similar threat. On June 22, 2009, she again threatened a co-employee, Marilyn Boongaling, stating she would shoot her if anything happened to her (Sambajon’s) child, as she was pregnant at the time.
The PAO formally charged her with Grave Misconduct and Being Notoriously Undesirable. In a Decision dated December 8, 2009, the PAO found her guilty and dismissed her from service. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission modified the ruling, finding her guilty only of Simple Misconduct and imposing a six-month suspension. The CSC held the acts, while improper, did not show a depraved mind or flagrant disregard of law required for Grave Misconduct, and her satisfactory performance negated the charge of being notoriously undesirable.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the CSC and finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, warranting dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of the offenses and the evidence presented. First, the Court clarified that the administrative charge was properly for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, not “Being Notoriously Undesirable,” as the latter is a catch-all phrase for grounds like disgraceful/immoral conduct. The acts were correctly classified under the specific offense of Conduct Prejudicial.
The Court then held that petitioner’s actions constituted Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Misconduct is grave if it involves corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. The repeated and specific threats of violence (“paduduguin ko ang mata,” “babarilin ko siya”) made in the workplace against colleagues demonstrated a wrongful intent and a flagrant disregard for the standard of conduct demanded of a public servant, particularly a lawyer in the PAO. Her emotional state and pregnancy, while considered by the CSC, did not excuse the deliberate and aggressive nature of the threats, which created a climate of fear.
Both offenses are classified as grave. Applying the Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, specifically Section 50 on penalties for multiple charges, the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed. The graver penalty is dismissal, which attaches to Grave Misconduct. Therefore, the Court affirmed the CA’s imposition of the penalty of dismissal from the service.