SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. SB-05-13-P. July 31, 2013.]
RENATO T. BOCAR, petitioner, vs. FERDINAND L. GURTIZA, SECURITY GUARD III, SANDIGANBAYAN, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 31 July 2013 which reads as follows:
A.M. No. SB-05-13-P — Renato. T. Bocar v. Ferdinand L. Gurtiza, Security Guard III, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City.
In a complaint 1 dated August 20, 2004, complainant Renato T. Bocar, Director III, Legal Research and Technical Staff, Sandiganbayan, charged respondent Ferdinand L. Gurtiza, Security Guard III, Security and Sheriff Services, same office, with Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, alleging that between the evening of June 23, 2004 and the early morning of June 24, 2004, Security Guard Ferdinand L. Gurtiza, who was then off-duty and for an undetermined purpose, surreptitiously entered the Sandiganbayan Building and broke into the Medical Clinic located at the 6th floor by forcing open its locked sliding glass window. 2
Confronted with the accusations against him, the respondent executed a Sworn Affidavit 3 dated October 5, 2004, attesting to the following:
1. In the evening of June 23, 2004, I had a serious squabble with my wife regarding our tight financial conditions; ScTCIE
2. I went out of the house and had a drink or two;
3. In order not to exacerbate my domestic situation, I proceeded to the Sandiganbayan to take the heat off and spend the entire evening;
4. I did not pass by the Security office because I [wanted] to spend some time alone;
5. I went directly to the medical clinic. Being familiar with condition of the windows because I was most of the time roving, I was able to open the glass windows without actually forcing it;
6. I stayed there without any intention to destroy or take anything, I just wanted to think things over;
7. Before 5:30; I left through the glass windows where I entered;
8. I apologized for every inconvenience or commotion I have caused and if there be any sanctions, let it not be harsh.
In an Evaluation Report 4 dated January 11, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the respondent's acts constituted grave misconduct and recommended that —
1. this case be REDOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
2. respondent . . . be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all monetary benefits; and
3. respondent be declared DISQUALIFIED from being re-employed in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government.
Pursuant to the OCA's recommendation, the complaint was redocketed as a regular administrative matter under the Court's Resolution 5 of February 16, 2005. The parties were required to manifest to the Court, within twenty (20) days from notice, whether they were submitting the case on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted.
The complainant submitted his Manifestation dated December 2, 2005, submitting the case for resolution of the Court on the basis of the pleadings already filed and submitted. 6ICHcaD
The respondent failed to file the required manifestation. Notices sent to him at the Sandiganbayan were received by the Receiving Clerk, but it does not appear whether they were forwarded to him. Subsequent notices sent to him at his last known address were returned unserved with a Postmaster's notation, "RTS moved out."
Contrary to the findings and recommendations of the OCA, we find that the respondent can only be found guilty of simple misconduct for the act of entering the locked clinic at an unholy hour without any authority and using means not intended for ingress and egress. We find it undisputed though that his intention in entering the Medical Clinic was only to spend the night there after a previous serious argument with his wife. As he was familiar with the conditions of the windows of the clinic, the respondent entered the clinic through its window without forcing open this glass window. The respondent apologized for the incident and now seeks the understanding of the Court.
Under Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. This is the respondent's first offense. There are mitigating circumstances to be considered in his favor: (1) the respondent had no intention to destroy or take anything from the clinic; (2) he just spent the night in the clinic as he had nowhere to go; (3) he apologizes for the incident; (4) he seeks the understanding of the Court; and (5) there were no missing, damaged or destroyed equipment and medicines at the clinic.
Based on these considerations, the Court finds that the respondent should only be reprimanded for the acts complained of. If we find him guilty at all, this finding solely proceeds from his unusual mode of entry into the clinic — an act that a security personnel like him should not do. Taken together with the many mitigating circumstances in his favor, a reprimand is the only sanction that is due. TAcSCH
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to REPRIMAND the respondent Ferdinand Gurtiza, Security Guard III of the Sandiganbayan for the SIMPLE MISCONDUCT he has committed.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 1.
2.Ibid.
3.Id. at 11.
4.Id. at 12-14.
5.Page unnumbered.
6.Page unnumbered.