TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that resignation does not excuse a Sandiganbayan security guard, Regino Hermosisima, from administrative liability. Hermosisima was found guilty of Gross Misconduct and Gross Insubordination for two separate incidents: improper behavior at a bank and drunken, abusive conduct while on duty at the Sandiganbayan. Even though he resigned, the Court forfeited his retirement benefits (excluding leave credits), disqualified him from future government employment, and fined him PHP 110,000. This decision underscores that judicial personnel are held to high standards of conduct and cannot evade accountability through resignation after disciplinary proceedings have begun.

Dereliction of Duty: When a Security Guard’s Actions Undermine Court Integrity

Can a court employee escape administrative penalties by resigning amidst an investigation? This case addresses the accountability of judicial personnel, specifically examining the actions of a Sandiganbayan security guard, Regino Hermosisima. The charges stemmed from two troubling incidents: one at a Landbank branch and another at the Batasan Gate of the Sandiganbayan. These incidents led to formal charges of Gross Insubordination, Grave Misconduct, Being Notoriously Undesirable, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The central legal question is whether Hermosisima’s actions warrant administrative sanctions, and if his subsequent resignation shields him from these consequences.

The narrative unfolds with an Incident Report from Landbank detailing Hermosisima’s disruptive behavior regarding his overtime pay. This was followed by a Batasan Gate incident where Hermosisima was found absent from his post, intoxicated, and verbally abusive towards a lawyer and physically aggressive towards a fellow security guard. Prior to these events, a bizarre letter from Hermosisima proposing unusual financial schemes and reports of arguments with colleagues had already raised concerns about his conduct and led to a directive for a psychological evaluation, which he refused to undergo. These cumulative incidents triggered a fact-finding investigation and subsequent formal charges based on the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS).

However, the Supreme Court clarified that disciplinary cases against judicial personnel are governed by Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended. This distinction is crucial as Rule 140 has different classifications of charges and penalties. The Court emphasized that Hermosisima’s resignation did not render the administrative case moot. Drawing from jurisprudence, the decision reiterated that resignation after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings does not prevent the determination of administrative liability. In fact, Hermosisima’s resignation and lack of participation were seen as indicators of guilt. The Court then proceeded to evaluate the charges under Rule 140.

The Court upheld the Judicial Integrity Board’s (JIB) findings but modified the penalties. It categorized Hermosisima’s refusal to undergo the psychological evaluation as Gross Insubordination. Citing precedent, the Court defined Gross Insubordination as “the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey some order that a superior is entitled to give and have obeyed.” His actions at the Batasan Gate, including intoxication on duty, verbal abuse, and physical assault, were classified as Gross Misconduct. Misconduct, generally, is defined as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,” and becomes gross when it involves “corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules.”

While the JIB initially considered the Batasan Gate incident as Simple Misconduct due to a perceived lack of corruption, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court highlighted Hermosisima’s deliberate abandonment of his post to consume alcohol, his disrespectful behavior towards an officer of the court (Atty. Pulma), and the assault on his colleague. These actions demonstrated a clear disregard for established procedures and ethical standards expected of court personnel. The Court referenced Hermosisima’s own testimony admitting to drinking on duty to underscore the gravity of his misconduct.

In determining the penalties, the Court considered a previous administrative case against Hermosisima for Simple Misconduct, treating it as an aggravating circumstance. Under Rule 140, serious charges like Gross Insubordination and Gross Misconduct can warrant dismissal, suspension, or fines. Since dismissal was no longer possible due to Hermosisima’s resignation, the Court opted for penalties in lieu of dismissal as provided by Section 18 of Rule 140. For Gross Insubordination, he faced forfeiture of retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from government employment. For Gross Misconduct, a fine of PHP 110,000 was imposed, increased from the standard maximum due to the aggravating circumstance of prior misconduct.

The judgment emphasizes that each offense—Gross Insubordination and Gross Misconduct—warrants separate penalties, reflecting the distinct nature of the violations. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandiganbayan v. Hermosisima serves as a firm reminder that judicial employees are bound by a code of conduct, and resignation is not a shield against administrative accountability for serious breaches of duty. The ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining integrity and discipline within the Philippine judiciary.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Sandiganbayan vs. Hermosisima, A.M. No. SB-24-003-P, June 04, 2024