The Supreme Court, in this administrative matter, addressed the theft of electrical wires within its premises and the subsequent handling of related reports. The Court found several security personnel liable for neglect of duty due to lapses in reporting, investigation, and supervision. This decision underscores the high standards of diligence and integrity expected of all judiciary employees, particularly those responsible for the safety and security of court property and personnel. The ruling emphasizes that even unintentional lapses can have serious consequences and that all employees, especially security personnel, must be vigilant and proactive in their duties.

A Court’s Security Breach: When a Stolen Wire Unravels a Web of Neglect

This case arose from a report on the alleged theft of electrical wires used for the spotlights at the Supreme Court’s Taft Avenue gate. Two incidents of theft were reported, one on September 27, 2006, and another on September 30, 2006. These incidents led to an investigation that revealed several lapses in security protocols and reporting procedures. The Court’s investigation focused not only on the thefts themselves but also on the conduct of the security personnel responsible for maintaining order and preventing such incidents.

The first incident involved the loss of electrical wires, which was reported by Leonardo Yecla, Jr., of the Maintenance Division. Michael Fajardo, the security guard assigned to the Taft-Faura post, was reassigned to the basketball court area around the time the theft occurred. The investigation revealed that the loss could have occurred while the Taft-Faura post was unmanned. Atty. Candelaria directed Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Lastica to explain why no disciplinary measures should be taken against them, Fajardo for failing to report the loss and Lastica for reassigning Fajardo without ensuring the premises’ security.

The second incident involved a similar report of missing wires, made by Mr. Eligio Del Mundo, the first shift guard at the Taft-Faura post. Further complicating matters, the logbook page containing Mr. Del Mundo’s report went missing. This led to additional inquiries, with Atty. Candelaria directing Mr. Pablo to explain the failure to report the loss of the wire and the missing logbook page. The subsequent investigation revealed a series of procedural lapses and raised questions about the diligence of the security personnel involved. Mr. Pablo, the Chief of the Security Division, instructed Mr. Del Mundo to rewrite the report on a new page, which was then attached to the logbook.

The OAS submitted a report recommending warnings for Mr. Pablo, Mr. Lastica, and Mr. Fajardo, and advice for Engr. Bernardito Bundoc. However, the Supreme Court found these penalties too lenient, given the circumstances. The Court emphasized that security personnel in the Judiciary are expected to adhere to strict and rigorous standards. It reiterated that the Court could not condone transgressions of duty, even if unintended, especially when they could have been avoided with reasonable care. The Court noted that every employee of the Judiciary should exemplify integrity, uprightness, and honesty, and their conduct must be above suspicion at all times. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel sets a high standard for all employees of the judiciary.

Regarding Mr. Fajardo, the Court found that, despite the absence of negligence, his cavalier attitude toward his official duty could not be countenanced. Even when reassigned, his primary responsibility remained the Taft-Faura post. As for Mr. Lastica, the Court determined that his decision to pull the guard from the Taft-Faura gate without implementing precautionary measures constituted negligence warranting disciplinary action. The Court emphasized that Mr. Lastica, as a supervisor, should have been familiar with the protocols for reassigning security personnel and should have taken steps to minimize risks.

Addressing the missing logbook page, the Court highlighted the security division’s procedural lapses. The Court found it incomprehensible how a logbook page could go missing unless deliberately removed. Mr. Pablo’s inaction in reporting and investigating the missing page was seen as a dereliction of duty. The Court pointed out that Mr. Pablo should have immediately reported the loss to the OAS Chief and conducted an investigation, similar to his response to the September 27 incident. His failure to do so, and his subsequent instruction to restore the lost reports, indicated a lack of diligence and a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, specifically Section 3, Canon IV, which states:

SEC. 3 Court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within their control.

The Court concluded that Mr. Pablo had violated the confidence reposed in him as chief of the Security Division and that his lack of diligence constituted negligence. This negligence was further exacerbated by his failure to properly supervise his personnel. In light of these findings, the Court imposed disciplinary measures to emphasize the importance of maintaining security and upholding the standards of conduct expected of judiciary employees.

The Court highlighted the critical role of the Security Division in implementing preventive and corrective measures against any wrongdoing against the Court, its property, and its personnel. It stressed the need for security personnel to be fully cognizant of their grave task and to exercise due care in performing their duties, regardless of staffing shortages. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of accountability and the need for continuous vigilance in maintaining the security of the Court’s premises.

This ruling reinforces the principle that all employees of the Judiciary, especially those in security roles, must adhere to the highest standards of diligence and integrity. It also provides a clear framework for addressing security lapses and ensuring accountability within the court system. The penalties imposed reflect the Court’s commitment to maintaining a secure environment and upholding the public’s trust in the judiciary. The court imposed the following penalties:

• Mr. Danilo C. Pablo: Found guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended without pay for one month.
• Mr. Fernando Lastica: Found guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended without pay for one month.
• Mr. Michael Fajardo: Warned for failing to report all incidents within his area of responsibility.
• Security Division: Warned for failing to exercise due diligence and reminded of its responsibility to maintain order and security.
• Engr. Bernardito Bundoc: Directed to inspect Court premises and remove or secure unnecessary wires, cables, or installations.

The court makes it clear that “Every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion at all times.” This case exemplifies the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that its personnel adhere to the highest standards of conduct and that any lapses in security are addressed promptly and effectively.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was the neglect of duty by security personnel following the theft of electrical wires within the Supreme Court premises, including the failure to report incidents and secure the premises properly. The court addressed the lapses in security protocols and the accountability of the personnel involved.
Who were the key individuals involved?	The key individuals involved were Danilo C. Pablo, Chief of the Security Division; Fernando Lastica, Assistant Shift In-charge; Michael Fajardo, Security Guard I; and Engr. Bernardito Bundoc, all of whom were found to have committed lapses in their duties. The case also involved Eligio Del Mundo, another security guard.
What were the specific acts of neglect?	Specific acts of neglect included Fajardo’s failure to report a theft in his area, Lastica’s reassignment of Fajardo without securing the post, and Pablo’s failure to report and investigate the missing logbook page. These actions contributed to a breakdown in security and accountability within the Court.
What penalties were imposed by the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court suspended Danilo C. Pablo and Fernando Lastica without pay for one month each. Michael Fajardo was warned, and the Security Division was reminded of its duties. Engr. Bernardito Bundoc was directed to inspect and secure the Court premises.
What is the significance of the missing logbook page?	The missing logbook page was significant because it contained a report of one of the thefts. The failure to properly account for and investigate its disappearance indicated a serious breach of security protocol and a lack of diligence on the part of the security personnel.
What does the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel say about altering records?	Section 3, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel states that court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy, or mutilate any record within their control. This provision was cited in the case to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of court records.
Why were the initial penalties recommended by the OAS considered too light?	The initial penalties recommended by the OAS were considered too light because the Supreme Court believed that the security personnel fell short of the strict standards required of all security officers in the Judiciary. The Court wanted to send a stronger message about the importance of accountability and diligence.
What is the main takeaway from this case?	The main takeaway from this case is that all employees of the Judiciary, especially those in security roles, must adhere to the highest standards of diligence and integrity. Any lapses in security will be addressed promptly and effectively to maintain the Court’s security and uphold public trust.

In conclusion, this case underscores the critical importance of diligence, accountability, and adherence to established protocols within the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder to all court personnel, especially those in security roles, of their responsibility to uphold the highest standards of conduct and to ensure the safety and security of the Court’s premises and personnel. The penalties imposed reflect the Court’s commitment to maintaining a secure environment and upholding public trust.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: REPORT ON THE ALLEGED THEFT OF ELECTRICAL WIRES, A.M. NO. 2007-09-SC, July 12, 2007