Facts:

This administrative case arose from a memorandum dated September 3, 2003, submitted by Judge Juanita C. Tienzo, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Lupao, Nueva Ecija, against Dominador R. Florendo, who served as Clerk II of the same court. The memorandum charged Florendo with gambling during office hours and conduct unbecoming of a government employee. The events leading to this charge began when Judge Tienzo caught Florendo playing "tong-it," a game of chance, in a hut located at the back of the Municipal Building of Lupao on August 26, 2003. Despite being warned against such conduct, Florendo continued to engage in gambling activities. Judge Tienzo subsequently issued directives requiring him to report to the office during specified hours and warned him against disclosing confidential information regarding court matters. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) later issued three directives to Florendo, requesting his comments on the charges, b...

Facts:

1. Complainant and Respondent:

   • Complainant: Judge Juanita C. Tienzo, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Lupao, Nueva Ecija.
   • Respondent: Dominador R. Florendo, Clerk II of the same court.

2. Charges Against Respondent:

   • Gambling during office hours (playing "tong-it," a game of chance).
   • Conduct unbecoming a government employee, including revealing confidential matters (e.g., information about the issuance of warrants of arrest) and relaying fake information.

3. Incidents of Gambling:

   • Respondent was caught gambling on August 26, 2003, in a hut at the back of the Municipal Building of Lupao.
   • This was the third time he was caught gambling despite prior warnings from Judge Tienzo.

4. Directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):

   • The OCA issued three directives to the respondent:
     • 1st Indorsement (October 16, 2003): Required respondent to file a comment within 10 days.
     • 1st Tracer (March 11, 2004): Required respondent to file a comment within 5 days.
     • 2nd Indorsement (July 2, 2004): Required respondent to file a comment and explain his failure to comply with the previous directives.
   • Respondent received all directives but failed to submit any comment or explanation.

5. OCA Recommendation:

   • The OCA recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service for engaging in gambling during office hours, citing Section 52 (c) (5), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Applicability of the Penalty for Gambling:

   • Under Section 52 (c) (5), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, the penalty for gambling is as follows:
     • 1st Offense: Reprimand.
     • 2nd Offense: Suspension for 1-30 days.
     • 3rd Offense: Dismissal.
   • The Court clarified that the term "third offense" refers to a third final judgment of guilt after formal charges. In this case, the respondent was only formally charged after the third incident, making this his first offense under the rules.

2. Respondent’s Conduct and Failure to Comply:

   • The respondent repeatedly defied warnings from Judge Tienzo to refrain from gambling.
   • He also failed to submit any comment or explanation to the OCA’s directives, showing a lack of remorse and accountability.

3. Importance of Upholding Ethical Standards in the Judiciary:

   • The Court emphasized that court officials and employees must maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and uprightness.
   • Gambling is condemned as a vice that leads to moral degradation, dishonesty, and neglect of duty.

4. Appropriate Penalty:

   • While the Court did not impose dismissal, it imposed a fine equivalent to three months' salary to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct.
   • The Court warned the respondent against repeating such conduct, stressing the need to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.