Title
Supreme Court vs. Delgado
Case
A.M. No. 2011-07-SC
Decision Date
Oct 4, 2011
Supreme Court personnel removed confidential Agenda pages, breaching trust and confidentiality, leading to dismissal for Grave Misconduct.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2011-07-SC)

Background of the Incident

On June 2, 2011, Justice Carpio transmitted two sealed agendas to the Office of the Clerk of Court - Second Division (OCC-SD) for the purpose of preparing minutes from court sessions. Ms. Christine S. Puno, an Executive Assistant III at OCC-SD, received and opened these agendas. After instructing Mr. Julius Irving C. Tanael, another official at OCC-SD, to photocopy one of the agendas, it was noted that certain pages were missing upon inspection. Ms. Puno found some of these missing pages in Delgado’s desk drawer, leading to suspicion of unauthorized removal.

Initial Investigation Findings

During the initial investigation, Delgado admitted to removing pages 58, 59, and 70 from the agenda at the request of respondents Madeja and Florendo. He justified his actions as a favor, indicating that the two respondents expressed interest in the agenda items. Madeja and Florendo later confirmed they requested and obtained these pages from Delgado, although they initially suggested they were uninvolved during the formal investigation.

Formal Investigation Proceedings

Following the initial findings, the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) was tasked with conducting a formal investigation, leading to preventive suspension of the respondents for ninety days. The OAS held separate hearings, and while Delgado maintained his confession, Madeja and Florendo denied any involvement in the removal of the pages. Their denials, however, conflicted with earlier admissions made during the initial investigation, raising questions about their credibility.

OAS Conclusion and Recommendations

The OAS, in its memorandum dated September 1, 2011, recommended that Delgado be dismissed from service for Grave Misconduct, while Madeja and Florendo were found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and were recommended for a six-month suspension. The rationale was based on their unauthorized actions related to the confidential nature of the agenda, which is established as strictly confidential by the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court.

Court Ruling

The Supreme Court found that all respondents exhibited complicity in the Grave Misconduct surrounding the removal of the agenda pages. Delgado’s consistent admission of his acts and implicating statements against Madeja and Florendo were deemed credible. Consequently, the Court ruled that all three respondents should face the same level of administrative liability despite the different degrees of their involvement.

Administrative Liability

The Court established that the unauthorized removal of agenda pages constitutes Grave Misconduct, which undermin

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.