G.R. No. 85323 - Philippine National Construction Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The issue arose following a random drug test conducted on July 11, 2022, by the Medical and Dental Services of the Supreme Court, which included Johnny R. Llemos among the employees being tested.
Llemos, employed as Painter I in the Maintenance Division of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Supreme Court, tested positive for illegal drug use, specifically showing reactions indicative of methamphetamine in his urine.
The positive drug test result was corroborated by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) through a confirmatory laboratory examination, which provided a Certification stating the presence of methamphetamine.

The matter was initiated when Atty. Maria Carina M. Cunanan, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of the OAS, referred the case to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) via her 1st Indorsement.
The JIB, after receiving the matter, transmitted it to the Office of the Executive Director (OED) for further action and recommendation.
In response, Llemos filed a verified Comment admitting to the use of illegal drugs but emphasizing that it was not a habitual practice.
Llemos expressed remorse and pleaded for indulgence on humanitarian grounds, specifically citing his responsibilities toward his children’s education and welfare.

The JIB, through its Report, found Llemos guilty of gross misconduct pursuant to the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and for the use of illegal drugs or substances.
As a result, the JIB recommended his dismissal from service, along with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave credits), and precluded reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Prior to the final decision, the Supreme Court had ordered a preventive suspension of Llemos for 90 days without pay and other monetary benefits, with the possibility of extension for compelling reasons.
The OED, supported by the JIB, submitted the Report and Recommendation endorsing the charges and recommending severe administrative sanctions, including dismissal from service.
After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations, though with a modification concerning the penalty imposed.

The Court underscored that Llemos’s admission coupled with the confirmatory NBI test provided more than substantial evidence of his use of illegal drugs.
The misconduct was deemed flagrant and contrary to the expected norms of conduct for court personnel, thereby tarnishing the image and integrity of the Judiciary.
In balancing the evidence with mitigating circumstances—such as his admission, display of remorse, absence of a prior offense, and the humanitarian appeal regarding his dependents—the Court opted to modify the penalty recommended by the JIB.
The Court ultimately imposed a lesser sanction by suspending Llemos from office for one year rather than dismissing him, in accordance with both Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and the Guidelines for the Implementation of a Drug-Free Policy in the Philippine Judiciary.

Whether the evidence—comprising the positive random drug test result, the confirmatory test by the NBI, and Llemos’s own admission—established that Llemos used illegal drugs or substances.
Whether Llemos’s actions constituted gross misconduct under the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.

Whether dismissal from service was the appropriate disciplinary sanction, or whether mitigating circumstances warranted a less severe penalty.
How the mitigating factors (such as his admission of guilt, lack of previous offenses, and humanitarian considerations regarding his family) should influence the imposition of a penalty.

The extent to which guidelines under Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 23-02-11-SC and Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, direct the imposition of certain sanctions (suspension, dismissal, or fine) for offenses involving drug use and misconduct.
Whether the case precedents (e.g., the Court of Appeals decision in the case of Rommel P. Labitoria) support a reduction in the penalty under the circumstances presented.