A.M. No. CA-15-33-P - Marigomen vs. Labar

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-15-33-P)

Factual Background

At about 3:35 p.m. on January 25, 2012, Atty. Cad-Enjambre caught respondent, together with two other co-terminous employees of CA-Cebu and an unidentified male person, playing cards under the staircase at the back of the office building. The area was located near the maintenance section’s working area. Atty. Cad-Enjambre observed that there were approximately twenty-peso bills and coins on the table with the cards. From these circumstances, she concluded that respondent and his companions were gambling.

Atty. Cad-Enjambre issued a Memorandum dated January 26, 2012 requiring respondent to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be imposed for the infraction(s). Respondent explained that he was merely taking his afternoon snacks when the incident occurred and that after completing his tasks, he and his companions played cards. He admitted knowledge of the April 14, 2011 Memorandum but asserted that he forgot about it. He nevertheless admitted and apologized for the infractions and promised not to repeat the conduct.

On January 31, 2012, Atty. Cad-Enjambre filed the letter-complaint and endorsed it to Investigating Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, Chairperson of the Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns of CA-Cebu. Respondent was formally charged on June 4, 2012 with insubordination pursuant to Section 52(B)(5), Rule IV of the RURACCS. He later reiterated his explanations in an Answer dated June 15, 2012.

Investigation and Recommendations

After due investigation, Atty. Cad-Enjambre issued a report dated July 24, 2012. The report found that respondent could be held liable for: (a) violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, and (b) gambling prohibited by law. These were framed under Section 52(C)(3) and Section 52(C)(5) of Rule IV of the RURACCS, respectively. She recommended the penalty of reprimand, noting it would be respondent’s first offense in both instances, and she warned that repetition would merit a more severe sanction.

Justice Ingles, however, issued a Resolution dated September 19, 2012 recommending that respondent be penalized with suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day, without pay, for insubordination. Justice Ingles rejected the claim that respondent merely forgot about the April 14, 2011 Memorandum. He reasoned that respondent’s acts, caught in flagrante delicto by Atty. Cad-Enjambre, showed an utter lack of regard for the reasonable office policy embodied in the memorandum. He considered the wrongdoing as insubordination rather than merely a light offense for gambling or other rule violations. He still proposed the lowest imposable penalty in view of respondent’s admission of guilt and sense of remorse.

The Resolution was thereafter indorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for action.

OCA Action and Recommendation

In a Memorandum dated March 17, 2015, the OCA agreed with Justice Ingles. The OCA recommended that the September 19, 2012 Resolution be approved and adopted in toto; that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and that respondent be found guilty of insubordination, with a penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day, together with a stern warning against repetition.

The OCA concluded that respondent’s acts constituted insubordination, not only a violation of office rules. It emphasized that the April 14, 2011 Memorandum took the form of a directive or order from a superior to a subordinate and required strict compliance. It also noted that the memorandum directed compliance with a Supreme Court circular, which the OCA treated as not to be taken lightly. It further stressed that gambling, witnessed firsthand, and respondent’s presence within the maintenance unit without the required pass slip could not be tolerated.

Issue for Resolution

The principal question presented to the Court was whether respondent should be held administratively liable for insubordination for violation of the April 14, 2011 Memorandum.

Legal Framework on Insubordination

The Court clarified that insubordination is legally understood as a refusal to obey some order that a superior officer is entitled to give and have obeyed. The concept requires a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer.

Court’s Ruling on Liability

The Court disagreed with the OCA’s recommendation as to the charge of insubordination. While respondent’s violation of the April 14, 2011 Memorandum was treated as indubitable, because he admitted the infractions and expressed remorse, the Court limited the remaining question to the proper nature of the administrative offense.

The Court found that respondent’s acts—specifically, loitering in the maintenance section premises of CA-Cebu without official business and without a valid pass slip from the Office of the Assistant Clerk of Court, while gambling during office hours—did not amount to insubordination. The Court held that the record did not show a willful or intentional disregard of any directive or order of a superior officer. It emphasized that respondent’s transgressions did not sufficiently demonstrate a refusal to comply.

The Court adopted Atty. Cad-Enjambre’s reasoning that, even if respondent forgot about the April 14, 2011 Memorandum, or if he feigned forgetfulness, the law of insubordination still required a willful or intentional defiance of reasonable instructions. The Court found that the records were bereft of evidence establishing that respondent’s presence in the maintenance section and subsequent act of gambling were deliberately and intentionally undertaken for the purpose of defying the memorandum.

Appropriate Offenses and Sanction

Given the evidentiary gap on intent required for insubordination, the Court held that respondent should instead be held liable for: (a) violation of reasonable office rules and regulations under Section 52(C)(3), Rule IV of the RURACCS, based on his unjustified presence in the maintenance section without official business and without a valid pass slip; and (b) gambling prohibited by law under Section 52(C)(5), Rule IV of the same rules, for gambling during the incident.

On penalty, the Court considered respondent’s apology, his vow not to repeat, and his status as having committed his first administrative infraction. It therefore imposed the penalty of reprimand, rather than the OCA-recommended suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day.

The Court also underscored the heightened expectations of moral righteousness and uprightness in the judiciary, stressing that the conduct of everyone connected with a court must remain beyond reproach. It reiterated that acts falling short of the exacting standards of public office, particularly by those expected to preserve the judiciary’s image, could not be countenanced. It thus framed the reprimand as a measured response, consistent with the circumstances of the case and the first-offense rule under the RURACCS provisions applied.

Dispositive Portion

Accordingly, respondent Ronelo G. Labar was found guilty of violation of Reasonable Offi

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-15-33-P)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Teresita R. Marigomen, Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals, Manila, appeared as the Complainant in an administrative matter against Ronelo G. Labar, Driver, Mailing and Delivery Section, Court of Appeals, Cebu Station (CA-Cebu).
Ronelo G. Labar was charged in the administrative process that began with a Letter-Complaint dated January 31, 2012 filed by Atty. Lucila M. Cad-Enjambre, Assistant Clerk of Court of CA-Cebu.
The case proceeded through an investigation by Investigating Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, Chairperson of the Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns of CA-Cebu.
Justice Ingles issued a Resolution dated September 19, 2012 recommending a penalty of suspension for insubordination.
The matter was indorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action.
The OCA, in a Memorandum dated March 17, 2015, recommended adoption of Justice Ingles’ findings and the corresponding penalty.
The Court resolved whether Labar’s acts warranted a finding of insubordination under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RURACCS).

Key Factual Allegations

Around 3:35 p.m. on January 25, 2012, Atty. Cad-Enjambre allegedly caught Labar, together with two (2) co-terminous employees and an unidentified male person, playing cards under the staircase behind the CA-Cebu office building.
The location was described as near the working area of the maintenance section and situated within the court premises.
Atty. Cad-Enjambre observed money on the table, consisting of approximately twenty-peso bills and coins, which led her to deduce that the group was gambling.
Atty. Cad-Enjambre issued a Memorandum dated January 26, 2012 requiring Labar to explain why no disciplinary action should be imposed.
In his defense, Labar claimed he was merely taking his afternoon snacks and that afterward he and his companions played cards because he was already done with his tasks.
Labar admitted knowledge of the April 14, 2011 Memorandum but claimed he forgot about it, and he also admitted the infractions, apologized, and vowed not to repeat the conduct.
On January 31, 2012, Atty. Cad-Enjambre issued the letter-complaint and referred the matter to Justice Ingles.
Labar was formally charged on June 4, 2012 with insubordination pursuant to Section 52 (B) (5), Rule IV of the RURACCS.
After investigation, Atty. Cad-Enjambre issued a report dated July 24, 2012 finding potential liability for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law.
The report recommended reprimand as the lowest penalty due to the offenses being Labar’s first offense, together with a stern warning against repetition.
In Justice Ingles’ September 19, 2012 Resolution, he recommended suspension for insubordination, rejecting Labar’s “forgetfulness” defense and emphasizing the court context and flagrante situation.
The Court Administrator and OCA later adopted the insubordination theory and recommended suspension, but the Court ultimately rejected the insubordination characterization.

The April 14, 2011 Memorandum and Circular

The April 14, 2011 Memorandum prohibited an employee not officially assigned to the maintenance section from staying within that area during office hours, including noon breaks, unless on official business and with a pass slip issued by the Office of the Assistant Clerk of Court.
The memorandum required that the pass slip be returned to the Office of the Assistant Clerk of Court as soon as the official business in the area was accomplished.
The memorandum further called attention to SC Administrative Circular No. 1-99 issued by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. on 15 January 1999.
SC Administrative Circular No. 1-99 emphasized the judiciary’s status as temples of justice and instructed that court officials and employees must not permit gambling within court premises.
The April 14, 2011 Memorandum thus embodied both a premises and pass-slip rule and an express linkage to a circular prohibiting gambling in court premises.

Administrative Charges and Applicable Rules

The formal charge against Labar was insubordination under Section 52 (B) (5), Rule IV of the RURACCS.
Justice Ingles and the OCA treated Labar’s acts as insubordination despite the presence of separate provisions on rule violations and gambling.
Atty. Cad-Enjambre’s July 24, 2012 Report evaluated Labar’s conduct under Section 52 (C) (3) and Section 52 (C) (5) of Rule IV of the RURACCS.
Section 52 (C) (3) classified “Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations” with reprimand as the first offense penalty.
Section 52 (C) (5) classified “Gambling prohibited by law” with reprimand as the first offense penalty.
The penalty scales in the cited provisions were noted in the record, including that higher offenses escalate from suspension to dismissal depending on recurrence.

Issues for Resolution

The Court identified the central issue as whether Labar should be held administratively liable for insubordination for violating the April 14, 2011 Memorandum.
A subsidiary issue was whether Labar’s conduct properly fell under insubordination or instead under the offenses for reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law.
The Court treated Labar’s actual guilt for violating the