A.M. No. CA-23-001-P - Court of Appeals vs. Garry U. Caliwan, Edmundo T. Malit, and Frederick C. Mauricio

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-23-001-P)

Factual Background

On June 28, 2022, the CA conducted a random drug test on Caliwan, Malit, and Mauricio. All three tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and the results were confirmed by Labtox Analytical Laboratory, Inc., an accredited laboratory facility of the Department of Health Dangerous Drugs Board.

After the test, the CA Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns recommended that the respondents be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and be dismissed from the service. The CA also assessed Mauricio’s case differently because he opted for early retirement, and the CA opined that instead of dismissal, he should suffer forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from public service.

Referral to the Judicial Integrity Board and Filing of Comments

Through the October 7, 2022 Letter of Presiding Justice Salazar-Fernando, the CA transmitted the case records to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) for appropriate action. The JIB’s Office of the Executive Director (OED) required the respondents to file comments on the charges.

In their separate comments, Caliwan and Mauricio admitted having used prohibited drugs. Both prayed for leniency: Caliwan cited his exemplary record, including performance ratings, and emphasized that the case involved his first offense to temper the sanction. Mauricio invoked his 22-year government service as a mitigating circumstance. Malit, however, did not file a comment despite requesting several extensions. As a result, the OED treated the matter as submitted for resolution based on the records.

Report and Recommendation of the JIB and the OED

In the Report and Recommendation dated March 16, 2023, the OED found the respondents administratively liable for the Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances. It recommended (i) dismissal from the service for Caliwan and Malit; and (ii) for Mauricio, the forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, since his retirement had already been approved.

The OED justified dismissal by noting that the respondents’ positive results indicated that this was the second time they had tested positive for prohibited drugs. In the subsequent Report dated August 4, 2023, the JIB adopted the OED’s findings and recommendations in toto. The JIB’s recommendation asked that (a) Caliwan and Malit be declared GUILTY of Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances and be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations; and (b) Mauricio be declared GUILTY and have his retirement benefits except accrued leave credits forfeited, with perpetual disqualification from re-employment or appointment in any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

The JIB emphasized that (first) respondents’ use was proven not only by the random drug test results but also by their own admissions; (second) dismissal was warranted because the 2022 positive tests were the second instance for all three respondents; and (third) Mauricio could not be dismissed due to early retirement, so the accessory penalties of forfeiture and perpetual disqualification were proper instead.

The Sole Issue

The case presented a single issue: whether the respondents should be held administratively liable for Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court concurred with the JIB’s findings and recommendations and held the respondents administratively liable. It reiterated that the use of prohibited drugs was historically treated as tantamount to Grave Misconduct because it constituted a flagrant violation of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. The Court also referenced its prior pronouncements in cases such as Re: Louie Mark U. De Guzman.

At the same time, the Court clarified that Rule 140, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, now classifies the Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances as a serious charge under Section 14(0). Thus, while jurisprudence had previously sanctioned drug use under the umbrella of Grave Misconduct, the offense now fell squarely within Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances for respondents within the coverage of Rule 140.

The Court anchored the proper charging framework on Section 6(A)(i) of A.M. No. 23-02-11-SC, the Guidelines for the implementation of the drug-free policy in the judiciary, which provides that a positive confirmatory or challenge test result for drug use, with an exception for positive results arising from a court employee’s voluntary submission to drug testing under Section 7 of the Guidelines, is a sufficient basis for an administrative charge for Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances under Rule 140.

The Guidelines also recognize a mechanism for voluntary submission to drug testing. Under this mechanism, an initial positive result is not treated as a basis for administrative liability, but only for the first time. The Court explained that if an employee, who had completed a treatment and/or drug rehabilitation program once, later tests positive again for drug use after voluntarily submitting to a subsequent drug test, then the employee should be charged for Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances accordingly. The Court therefore stated that administrative liability under the Guidelines arises in two scenarios: (a) when the employee tests positive through a random drug test; and (b) when the employee, after completing treatment and/or rehabilitation once, tests positive a second time after voluntary submission.

Applying these standards, the Court held that respondents’ liability was sufficiently proven. It relied on the positive results of the 2022 random drug test and their admissions. It further noted that the records showed prior positive testing: the CA conducted another random drug test on August 31, 2017, where respondents had also tested positive for shabu. Respondents then completed their Community-Based Treatment and Rehabilitation under the “Sagip Buhay, Sagip Pangarap” program of the City of Manila from November 2017 to April 2018.

Given these circumstances, the Court found that dismissal from the service was proper and commensurate with the offense, emphasizing that this was the second instance of positive testing in a random drug test context, and that respondents had already been given a chance to rehabilitate by the CA. The Court nevertheless recognized the practical limitation in Mauricio’s case: since Mauricio’s early retirement rendered dismissal impossible as a sanction, the Court imposed in his stead the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and perpetual disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations.

The Court also addressed the respondents’ attempts to temper sanctions through mitigating factors. It held that the aggravation-and-mitigation framework under Section 20 of Rule 140, as further amended, did not affect the outcome when the Court chose to impose dismissal, because Section 20 contemplates adjustments only in cases where the imposable sanction is suspension or fine. Where dismissal is selected, the mitigation framework for adjusting suspension duration or fine amount does not apply.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rested on the interplay between statutory drug control policy, the disciplinary framework for judicial personnel, and the Guidelines implementing a drug-free policy. It treated drug use as a serious breach of the law under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, and then applied the updated procedural classification under Rule 140 as amended. It further used A.M. No. 23-02-11-SC to identify when positive test results constitute a sufficient basis for administrative charging, including when an employee’s second positive test follows prior rehabilitation.

The Court also invoked the sanction scheme for serious charges under Section 17(1) of Rule 140, which provides for dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of benefits subject to the Supreme Court’s determination, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment, with the limitation that forfeiture of benefits cannot include accrued leave credits. It then harmonized the penalty consequences with Mauricio’s retirement status by imposing accessory penalties in lieu of dismissal.

Doctrinal Takeaway

The Court held that, for court personnel covered by Rule 140, the Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances is properly treated as a serious charge, and that positive confirmatory or challenge test results under the Guidelines—particularly those arising from random drug testing or from a second positive after prior rehabilitation—provide a sufficient basis for administrative liability. It reaffirmed that dismissal remains th

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-23-001-P)

The complainant was the Court of Appeals (CA), represented through a Letter dated October 7, 2022 from Presiding Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando.
The respondents were Garry U. Caliwan, Edmundo T. Malit, and Frederick C. Mauricio, all CA personnel.
The proceeding was treated as an administrative matter involving the CA’s personnel for the use of prohibited drugs.
The case was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court in accordance with the Report and Recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB).

Parties and Procedural Posture

The CA initiated administrative proceedings against its personnel after a random drug test.
The CA transmitted the case records to the Judicial Integrity Board for appropriate action through the Letter dated October 7, 2022.
The Office of the Executive Director (OED) of the JIB required respondents to file their respective Comments.
Caliwan and Mauricio filed separate Comments admitting drug use and requesting leniency.
Malit sought extensions but did not file a Comment, and the OED deemed the matter submitted for resolution based on the available records.
The OED issued a Report and Recommendation dated March 16, 2023 recommending dismissal and accessory penalties appropriate to each respondent.
The JIB adopted the OED’s findings in toto and recommended specific penalties to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court resolved the administrative liability of respondents on the sole issue of whether they should be held administratively liable for the Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances.

Key Factual Allegations

On June 28, 2022, the CA conducted a random drug test on the respondents.
All three respondents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, as confirmed by Labtox Analytical Laboratory, Inc., an accredited laboratory facility by the Department of Health Dangerous Drugs Board.
The CA Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns recommended administrative liability for Grave Misconduct and recommended dismissal from the service.
The CA opined that because Mauricio opted for early retirement, dismissal could no longer be imposed and forfeiture and disqualification should be applied instead.
In their Comments, Caliwan and Mauricio admitted having used prohibited drugs.
Malit did not file a Comment despite extensions, which left the evidentiary record based on the drug test results and other submitted materials.
The records further showed that respondents had previously tested positive in another random drug test conducted by the CA on August 31, 2017.
Respondents completed community-based treatment and rehabilitation under the “Sagip Buhay, Sagip Pangarap” Program of the City of Manila from November 2017 to April 2018.
The Supreme Court treated the positive tests from 2022 and the prior 2017 test, together with respondents’ admissions, as sufficient proof of the administrative offense.

Applicable Statutory and Procedural Framework

The Supreme Court treated use of prohibited drugs as a serious violation connected with Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, classified the Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances as a serious charge under Section 14(0).
The Court explained that while prior jurisprudence sanctioned drug use under Grave Misconduct, the framework now squarely applies under Rule 140 when committed by those covered by the amended rules.
The Court relied on Section 6(A)(i) of A.M. No. 23-02-11-SC, the Guidelines for the Implementation of a Drug-Free Policy in the Philippine Judiciary, which provides that a positive confirmatory or challenge test result for drug use constitutes a sufficient basis for an administrative charge for Possession and/or Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances.
The Guidelines recognized a voluntary submission mechanism under which an employee may submit to drug testing before random testing.
Under the Guidelines, an initial positive test arising from voluntary submission was treated as a basis only for first-time consideration, not for administrative liability, subject to the completed treatment/rehabilitation mechanism.
The Guidelines imposed administrative liability under two scenarios: a positive result after a random drug test, or a second positive result after voluntary testing despite prior completion of treatment/rehabilitation.
Section 17(1) of Rule 140, as further amended, set out the sanctions for a serious charge, including dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits (excluding accrued leave credits), and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
The Court also noted Section 20 of Rule 140, as further amended, on aggravation and mitigation of penalties, while emphasizing its limited application to cases where the sanction chosen is dismissal.

Issues Raised

The sole issue for resolution was whether the respondents should be held administratively liable for the Use of Illegal Drugs or Substances.
The question required the Court to apply the post-amendment Rule 140 and the drug-free policy Guidelines to the respondents’ positive test results