OCA - versus - REYES

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. FLORENCIO M. REYES, Officer-in-Charge, and RENE DE GUZMAN, Clerk, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-08-2535, June 23, 2010

Facts:

This complaint for gross misconduct against Rene de Guzman (De Guzman), Clerk, RTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, is an offshoot of the complaint filed by Atty. Sansano relative to the alleged incompetence/inefficiency of the said RTC in the transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G to the CA.

In the SC’s Resolution dated Sept-17-2007, the court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) declaring as closed and terminated the administrative matter relative to the delay in the transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G, and exonerating De Guzman and Florencio M. Reyes (Reyes), the OIC of the above-mentioned RTC. However, in the same Resolution, De Guzman was also required to comment on the allegation that he is using illegal drugs and had been manifesting irrational and queer behavior while at work.

Judge Sta. Romana requested the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office to conduct a drug test on De Guzman. De Guzman underwent a qualitative examination the results of which yielded positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol metabolites (marijuana) and Methamphetamine (shabu), both dangerous drugs.

Notwithstanding the Court’s directive, De Guzman failed to file his Comment. Thus, on the SC directed De Guzman to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Sept-17-2007 Resolution. De Guzman claimed that he failed to comply with the Court’s directive because he lost his copy of the said resolution.

The OCA submitted its Report and Recommendation which states that for failure to overcome the charge of use of prohibited drugs and to satisfactorily explain his failure to submit promptly his compliance to the Court’s show cause order, respondent may be held guilty of two counts of gross misconduct. The SC required De Guzman to manifest whether he is willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted. As before, De Guzman simply ignored the directive. The court deemed waived the filing of De Guzman’s manifestation.

Issue: Whether or not the Court has power to impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and court personnel. Held: Yes.

Ruling:

Article XI of the Constitution mandates that: SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Fe P. Ganzan, MCTC, Jasaan, Claveria, Misamis Oriental: A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply betrays, not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the lawful order and directive of the Court. This contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of, the system.

Anent the use of illegal drugs, the SC upheld in Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board the validity and constitutionality of the mandatory but random drug testing of officers and employees of both public and private offices. Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional demand, are required to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.

De Guzman never challenged the authenticity of the Chemistry Report of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. Likewise, the finding that De Guzman was found positive for use of marijuana and shabu remains unrebutted. De Guzman’s general denial that he is not a drug user cannot prevail over this compelling evidence. The foregoing constitutes more than substantial evidence that De Guzman was indeed found positive for use of dangerous drugs.

This Court is a temple of justice. Its basic duty and responsibility is the dispensation of justice. As dispensers of justice, all members and employees of the Judiciary are expected to adhere strictly to the laws of the land, one of which is Republic Act No. 9165 which prohibits the use of dangerous drugs. By using prohibited drugs, and being a front-line representative of the Judiciary, De Guzman has exposed to risk the very institution which he serves. It is only by weeding out the likes of De Guzman from the ranks that we would be able to preserve the integrity of this institution.

Two justices disagree with the majority opinion. They opine that the Court’s action in this case contravenes an express public policy, i.e., "imprisonment for drug dealers and pushers, rehabilitation for their victims." However, the legislative policy as embodied in Republic Act No. 9165 in deterring dangerous drug use by resort to sustainable programs of rehabilitation and treatment must be considered in light of this Court’s constitutional power of administrative supervision over courts and court personnel. The legislative power imposing policies through laws is not unlimited and is subject to the substantive and constitutional limitations that set parameters both in the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. As such, it cannot limit the Court’s power to impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and court personnel. Neither should such policy be used to restrict the Court’s power to preserve and maintain the Judiciary’s honor, dignity and integrity and public confidence that can only be achieved by imposing strict and rigid standards of decency and propriety governing the conduct of justices, judges and court employees.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.