Title
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gerson O. Galan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Iloilo City
Case
A.M. No. P-19-4002
Decision Date
May 14, 2024
Court employee convicted for drug-related offense, found guilty of gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to service; fined PHP 150,000, benefits forfeited, and barred from reemployment.

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-19-4002)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Origin and Initiation of the Case
    • The administrative case was initiated following a letter dated March 8, 2019, from Executive Judge Victor E. Gelvezon informing the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) about the arrest of respondent Gerson O. Galan, Utility Worker I of RTC Branch 30, Iloilo City.
    • Galan was arrested on March 7, 2019, during a buy-bust operation carried out by the Iloilo City Drug Enforcement Unit (CDEU) for selling dangerous drugs.
  • Criminal Proceedings and Underlying Offense
    • Galan, alongside co-accused Praud Joan L. Animas, was charged in an Information dated March 9, 2019, filed before Branch 38, RTC of Iloilo City for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
    • The information detailed that on or about March 7, 2019, in Iloilo City, both accused conspired and engaged in the unlawful sale and distribution of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) through a buy-bust operation where:
      • Galan met with a confidential agent and accompanied a poseur buyer, IO1 Remson Tiu, to facilitate the transaction.
      • Animas handed a small plastic sachet containing 0.1689 gram of shabu to the buyer, which later tested positive for the drug.
      • A total amount of PHP 3,000.00 (buys bust money) was involved, with specific details including the use of a one thousand peso bill and two additional one thousand peso bills.
  • Litigation and Plea Bargain
    • The criminal case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 19-83525 (raffled to Branch 35, RTC, Iloilo City) and resulted in Galan’s arraignment on April 23, 2019.
    • On May 9, 2019, Galan filed a Motion to Plea Bargain to withdraw his plea of “not guilty” and instead plead “guilty” to the lesser offense under Section 12 of RA 9165.
    • The RTC granted the plea bargain on May 27, 2019, and on August 9, 2019, rendered a decision finding Galan (and co-accused Animas) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 12 of RA 9165.
      • The decision imposed imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of PHP 30,000.00 for both accused.
      • Specific orders were issued regarding the confiscation and destruction of the drugs and the return of the buy-bust money.
  • Post-Criminal Proceedings Developments
    • On January 13, 2020, subsequent to the criminal decision, Galan tendered his resignation as Utility Worker I of Branch 30, RTC, Iloilo City.
    • The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) issued a Report and Recommendation on March 30, 2022, where it recommended that Galan be found guilty of gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
      • The JIB noted that Galan’s involvement in illegal drug activities, a flagrant violation of the law, tarnished the image of the court.
      • It recommended a penalty of a PHP 150,000.00 fine along with the forfeiture of all or part of his benefits, excluding accrued leave credits.

Issues:

  • Was Gerson O. Galan’s participation in an illegal drug operation, as evidenced by the buy-bust operation and subsequent criminal conviction, sufficient to constitute grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?
    • Does the fact that Galan was an employee of the court, engaged in adjudicating drug-related cases while being involved in similar criminal activities, aggravate the gravity of his offense?
    • Does his act warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions, including a substantive fine, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from future public service?
  • Is it appropriate for administrative penalty and disqualification to be imposed on an employee who has already tendered their resignation, based on the premise that their misconduct significantly undermines public confidence in the Judiciary?
    • Should the administrative penalty reflect the seriousness of the misconduct regardless of the employee’s separation from the service?
    • Does the jurisprudence support a single set of penalties for gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service when both offenses arise from a single act?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.