Title
Sandiganbayan vs. Regino R. Hermosisima
Case
A.M. No. SB-24-003-P
Decision Date
Jun 4, 2024
Respondent, a security guard, faced formal charges for gross insubordination and misconduct after multiple incidents highlighted his inappropriate behavior and refusal to undergo evaluation, leading to the forfeiture of benefits post-resignation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 37986)

Antecedents of the Case

The case included two significant incidents prompting the complaints: (1) the Landbank Incident and (2) the Batasan Gate Incident. The Landbank incident involved Hermosisima behaving inappropriately at the Landbank of the Philippines while waiting for his overtime pay, leading to a scene that was reported by another Sandiganbayan employee. Following the incident, he apologized but received a stern warning. In the Batasan Gate Incident, Hermosisima shouted at a superior, engaged in a physical altercation with another security guard, and was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol while on duty.

Disciplinary Actions and Recommendations

Both incidents led to administrative actions, including a requirement for Hermosisima to undergo a psychological evaluation, which he failed to complete. Subsequent memoranda were issued, requiring explanations and investigations. The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) recommended formal charges be issued against him after a thorough investigation found that Hermosisima was guilty of multiple administrative offenses, though he did not formally respond to the charges but sent a letter of apology.

Findings of the Judicial Integrity Board

The JIB's findings led to the proposal that Hermosisima be found guilty of Gross Misconduct, resulting in the forfeiture of retirement benefits and a disqualification from government employment. In its report, the JIB distinguished between Gross Insubordination and Simple Misconduct, ultimately recommending penalties appropriate to the violations.

Resolution of the Court

When reviewing the case, the Court aligned with the JIB's findings regarding the gravity of Hermosisima's actions. The Court clarified that the current allegations and penalties should be assessed according to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as disciplinary actions for judicial personnel have transitioned under this framework. The Court emphasized that Hermosisima’s resignation did not absolve him of administrative liability and constituted an admission of guilt concerning the charges.

Court's Rulings on Administrative Liability

The ruling concluded that Hermosisima was guilty of Gross Insubordination, defined by his refusal to comply with commands from his superiors, and Gross Misconduct, characterized by unlawful behavior and gross negligence as defined under relevant court personnel codes. The court detailed his inappropriate behavior during the incidents, including drinking on duty and failure to follow security protocols, leading to significant breaches of conduct.

Imposition of Penalties

In lieu of dismissal, given his resignation, Hermosisima faced the forfeiture of retirement benefits and financial penalties. The Court identified specific sanctions applicable

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.