Case Digest (A.M. No. CA-15-33-P)
Facts:
Teresita R. Marigomen v. Ronelo G. Labar, A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-CA-P], August 24, 2015, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The complaint originated with Atty. Lucila M. Cad-Enjambre, Assistant Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, Cebu Station (CA-Cebu), who on January 31, 2012 filed a letter-complaint charging Ronelo G. Labar, a Driver in the Mailing and Delivery Section of CA-Cebu, with violating an Office Memorandum dated April 14, 2011 (the April 14, 2011 Memorandum) and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-99, which prohibit staying in the maintenance section without official business and gambling on court premises.
On January 25, 2012 at about 3:35 p.m., Atty. Cad-Enjambre observed Labar together with two other co-terminous CA-Cebu employees and an unidentified male playing cards under a staircase adjacent to the maintenance/work area. Cash (twenty-peso bills and coins) was on the table; Atty. Cad-Enjambre concluded that they were gambling. She issued a Memorandum to Labar dated January 26, 2012 requiring a written explanation; Labar replied that he had been taking snacks, then played cards because his tasks were done, acknowledged knowledge of the April 14, 2011 Memorandum but claimed he forgot, and apologized.
Atty. Cad-Enjambre referred the matter to Investigating Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, Chair of the Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns of CA-Cebu. Labar was formally charged on June 4, 2012 with insubordination under Section 52(B)(5), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RURACCS). After investigation, Atty. Cad-Enjambre's July 24, 2012 report found violation of reasonable office rules and gambling prohibited by law (Section 52(C)(3) and (5), Rule IV, RURACCS) and recommended reprimand.
Justice Ingles issued a September 19, 2012 Resolution finding Labar guilty of insubordination and recommending suspension for one month and one day without pay (the lowest penalty for that offense), reasoning that the April 14, 2011 Memorandum was an authoritative directive and Labar's being caught in flagrante showed disregard for it. The Resolution was forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In a March 17, 2015 Memorandum the OCA agreed with Justice Ingles, endorsed the September 19, 2012...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should respondent Labar be held administratively liable for insubordination under Section 52(B)(5), Rule IV of the RURACCS for violating the April 14, 2011 Memorandum?
- If not insubordination, what administrative offenses did Labar commit and what penalty...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)