G.R. No. 193840 - Gaisano vs. Akol

The administrative case involved respondent Louie Mark U. De Guzman, Storekeeper I of the Property Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Supreme Court (SC).
Confidential reports were received alleging that respondent smoked within the stockroom of the Old SC Building on several occasions.
Although no direct witnesses observed the act, personnel stationed outside the stockroom reported detecting cigarette smoke when respondent was the sole occupant.

An ocular inspection of the stockroom revealed a blind spot at the back of the shelves where surveillance cameras did not have coverage and which lay outside the range of the fire alarm sensor.
It was noted that the ventilation windows in the stockroom had been taped shut with clear plastic film, suggesting an attempt to conceal smoke from being detected from outside.
Testimonies from Property Division officers indicated that respondent was often found loafing in that specific area, which was suspected to be used for clandestine smoking.

In early December 2020, staff of the Property Division noticed an unusual odor emerging from the stockroom, which differed from the typical cigarette smell and was suggestive of marijuana or another prohibited drug.
On December 10, 2020, the OAS issued a memorandum directing respondent to submit his written explanation within five days for the alleged misconduct related to smoking and suspected drug use.

Respondent submitted a letter on December 16, 2020 denying the allegations, asserting that he only smoked cigarettes in designated areas and only during allowable hours.
To address the possibility of drug use, the OAS sought and received authority from Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta to require respondent to undergo a drug test at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) laboratory.
On January 4, 2021, respondent voluntarily provided a urine sample at the NBI forensic laboratory, which later tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an active ingredient of marijuana.

Following the positive drug test result, respondent was again directed by the OAS to explain why he should not be held administratively liable.
In his letter dated January 8, 2021, respondent admitted to using marijuana during the first quarter of the previous year, attributing his action to family and marital problems compounded by pandemic-induced stress.
Although he expressed remorse and indicated a willingness to prevent a recurrence, his admission, coupled with the drug test result, provided a basis for the administrative charge of Grave Misconduct.

Whether the evidence, including the detection of smoke, the physical alterations to the stockroom (taped ventilation windows), and the presence of a blind spot, sufficiently established that respondent engaged in smoking on the premises.
Whether the unusual odor detected was a reliable indicator of the use of marijuana or any other prohibited drug within the office premises.

Whether the OAS acted in accordance with the appropriate administrative procedures by issuing the memorandum and directing the respondent to submit written explanations prior to subjecting him to drug testing.
Whether the voluntary submission to the NBI drug test and the subsequent positive result, combined with the respondent’s admission, provided a sound basis for imposing the administrative sanction of Grave Misconduct.

Whether the use of a prohibited drug, evidenced by the positive drug test and respondent’s admission, constitutes Grave Misconduct under the applicable civil service rules and Republic Act No. 9165.
Whether the recommended penalty of dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave credits) and referral to a drug rehabilitation facility, is appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation.