The Supreme Court in this case ruled that employees who engaged in unauthorized digging and excavation activities within the Supreme Court premises, with the aim of finding hidden treasures, are guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court emphasized that such actions, especially when done without permission and for personal enrichment, tarnish the integrity of public office. This decision reinforces the importance of upholding ethical standards and diligence in public service, ensuring that court personnel prioritize their official duties and responsibilities.

Unearthing Misconduct: Treasure Hunting in the Supreme Court Compound

This case arose from a complaint filed by Elvie A. Carbonel, a utility worker at the Supreme Court Compound in Baguio City (SC Compound-BC), against Engr. Teofilo G. Sanchez and Edgardo Z. Hallera. The complaint alleged that Engr. Sanchez ordered Hallera to conduct unauthorized excavation activities near the cottages of Associate Justices, purportedly to search for hidden Japanese treasures, compromising the structural soundness of the cottages.

The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) conducted an initial investigation, and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) also launched a separate investigation. The NBI’s Final Report revealed two unauthorized excavation sites within the SC Compound-BC. One site involved Hallera and Carbonel, who were searching for treasure beneath Cottage F. The second site, near Cottage J, involved Engr. Sanchez and Hallera. The National Museum of the Philippines confirmed that no permit was issued for treasure hunting within the SC Compound-BC. Consequently, the NBI recommended administrative and criminal charges against Engr. Sanchez, Hallera, and Carbonel.

The OAS adopted the NBI’s findings with some modifications. The OAS found Hallera and Carbonel administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service but recommended dismissing the case against Engr. Sanchez due to a lack of evidence of direct involvement in treasure hunting. However, the OAS found Engr. Sanchez liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to act prudently upon receiving information about the excavation near Cottage J, recommending a one-year suspension without pay.

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court determined that Hallera and Carbonel were indeed liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and Engr. Sanchez was liable for simple neglect of duty. The Court defined misconduct as a transgression of an established rule of action or gross negligence by a public officer. To constitute grave misconduct, there must be evidence of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.

The Court emphasized the element of corruption, stating that it exists when an official unlawfully uses their station to procure a benefit for themselves or another person, contrary to their duty and the rights of others. The Court cited the case of Re: Theft of the Used Galvanized Iron (GI) Sheets in the SC Compound, Baguio City, 665 Phil. 1, 10 (2011), in defining corruption.

The Court found that Hallera and Carbonel abused their positions as caretakers to engage in treasure hunting without the Court’s knowledge or permission. This violated Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which requires diligence and commitment to official duties during working hours. Consequently, the Court held them liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, actions that tarnish the image and integrity of public office. The Court cited Pia v. Gervacio, 710 Phil. 197, 206-207 (2013), to underscore the damage such actions inflict on public perception.

Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) classifies grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as grave offenses, with the corresponding penalties of dismissal from the service and suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, respectively.

The Court then invoked Section 50, Rule 10 of the RRACCS, which dictates that the penalty for the most serious charge should be imposed when an individual is found guilty of multiple charges:

Section 50. Penalty for the Most Serious Offense – If the respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.

Due to Hallera and Carbonel’s status as casual employees, the Court determined that termination of their employment was the appropriate penalty, instead of outright dismissal. As for Engr. Sanchez, the Court found him guilty of simple neglect of duty because he failed to properly investigate or report the unauthorized excavation activities. His actions demonstrated a disregard for his responsibilities and a lack of diligence. The Court defined simple neglect of duty as a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.

Given Engr. Sanchez’s prior disciplinary record, which included a fine for simple neglect of duty and a warning for procedural lapses, the initial penalty for the second offense would have been dismissal. However, the Court recognized its discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy, especially in the presence of mitigating factors. The Court cited Cabigao v. Nery, 719 Phil. 475, 484 (2013), to justify this tempering of justice.

The Court considered Engr. Sanchez’s ten years of service in the Judiciary as a mitigating factor. Instead of dismissal, the Court imposed a two-year suspension without pay. The Court took into account Engr. Sanchez’ long years of service in the Judiciary of about ten (10) years as a mitigating factor that serves to temper the penalty to be imposed on him. The Court based the consideration of long years of service as a mitigating factor from REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Section 48(n).

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the employees’ unauthorized digging and excavation activities within the Supreme Court premises constituted grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting administrative penalties.
Who were the individuals involved?	The individuals involved were Elvie A. Carbonel, Edgardo Z. Hallera, and Engr. Teofilo G. Sanchez, all employees of the Supreme Court Compound in Baguio City.
What did Elvie A. Carbonel and Edgardo Z. Hallera do?	They engaged in unauthorized digging and excavation activities within the Supreme Court premises, purportedly to search for hidden Japanese treasures.
What was Engr. Teofilo G. Sanchez’s involvement?	Engr. Sanchez was initially accused of ordering the excavation. However, he was found liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to take appropriate action upon learning about the unauthorized activities.
What penalties were imposed on Carbonel and Hallera?	Due to their status as casual employees, their casual employment was terminated, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave benefits, and with prejudice to reinstatement or reappointment to any public office.
What penalty was imposed on Engr. Sanchez?	Initially facing dismissal, Engr. Sanchez was instead suspended from office for two years without pay due to mitigating circumstances, specifically his long years of service.
What is grave misconduct?	Grave misconduct involves a transgression of established rules, often accompanied by corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
What is simple neglect of duty?	Simple neglect of duty refers to a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, without the malicious intent characteristic of more serious offenses.
Why was the National Museum of the Philippines involved?	The National Museum was contacted to verify whether any permits had been issued for treasure-hunting activities within the Supreme Court Compound, which confirmed that no such permits existed.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical responsibilities of public servants and the serious consequences of engaging in unauthorized activities. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and diligence in public office, while also demonstrating a nuanced approach to disciplinary actions by considering mitigating circumstances.

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: ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED DIGGING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT COMPOUND, BAGUIO CITY., A.M. No. 16-06-07-SC, February 21, 2017