A.M. No. 2016-03-SC, 16-06-07-SC - Re: Illegal and Unauthorized Digging and Excavation Activities Inside the Supreme Court Compound, Baguio City

A complaint dated January 6, 2016, filed by Elvie A. Carbonel, casual Utility Worker II, Maintenance Unit, SC Compound-BC, alleged unauthorized excavation activities inside the Supreme Court Compound in Baguio City.
The complaint targeted Engr. Teofilo G. Sanchez, SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer and Officer-in-Charge of the Maintenance Unit, and Edgardo Z. Hallera, casual Utility Worker II, for grave misconduct related to unauthorized digging near the cottages of Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Cottage J) and Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (Cottage F).

The complaint alleged that Engr. Sanchez ordered Hallera to conduct digging near the mentioned cottages with the purported aim of searching for hidden Japanese treasures, reportedly compromising the foundation of the cottages.
On January 8, 2016, a three-man team from the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) inspected the site and found no immediate signs of excavation; however, several employees later admitted the existence of a deliberately concealed hole, prompting a recommendation for a formal investigation.

Engr. Sanchez and Hallera were furnished with a copy of the complaint on January 11, 2016, and were given five days to respond.

Engr. Sanchez, in his January 14, 2016 memorandum, denied ordering any surreptitious digging and questioned the allegations regarding the depth of the hole and its alleged impact on structural soundness.
Hallera, through his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated January 14, 2016, stated that he dug a four-foot-deep hole near Cottage J for obtaining fertile soil for the garden, denying the possibility of any compromise to the structure.

A separate investigation was initiated by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) at the request of Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.

The NBI’s final report, dated June 7, 2016, identified two sites of unauthorized excavation: one below the stairs leading to the second level of Cottage F (dating from 2013-2014) and a second at the front yard of Cottage J (dating from 2014 until April 2015).
Testimonies, such as that of Danilo V. Julio and Elvis L. De Guzman, confirmed involvement and that the purpose of the excavations was linked to treasure hunting.
The National Museum of the Philippines confirmed that no permits had been issued for treasure-hunting activities within the SC Compound-BC.

The NBI recommended that Engr. Sanchez, Hallera, and Carbonel be charged with violating Section 48 of Republic Act No. 10066 (the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009), in addition to facing administrative liabilities.
The OAS, consolidating its internal findings with those of the NBI, adopted modified conclusions:

It found Hallera and Carbonel administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
It recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against Engr. Sanchez for the treasure-hunting allegation due to lack of corroborative evidence, but held him liable for simple neglect of duty regarding his failure to act prudently upon being informed of the excavation near Cottage J.
The recommendations included immediate termination for Hallera and Carbonel and suspension for Engr. Sanchez, besides pending a separate matter regarding missing pine lumber.

The case involved considerations of established disciplinary rules governing illegal activities and unauthorized excavations within the SC Compound-BC.
The standards for grave misconduct and simple neglect of duty were applied in light of the employees’ positions, responsibilities, and the need to protect the integrity of the public office.

Whether the digging and excavation performed inside the Supreme Court Compound qualified as illegal and unauthorized.
Whether these actions violated administrative and cultural heritage laws by potentially compromising the structural integrity of the cottages.

Whether the actions of Hallera and Carbonel amounted to grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Whether Engr. Sanchez’s failure to promptly act or properly investigate the unauthorized excavation near Cottage J constituted simple neglect of duty.

Whether the evidence and testimonies provided, including those by internal OAS personnel and the NBI, sufficiently corroborated the allegations made against the accused.
The credibility of testimonies, particularly those implicating Engr. Sanchez, and whether these were influenced by possible ulterior motives or personal grievances.

What penalty should be imposed on each respondent in accordance with the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) and other relevant legal standards.
Whether the mitigating factors, such as Engr. Sanchez's long service record, should influence the severity of the penalty imposed.