THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. 2017-15-SC. March 7, 2018.]
RE: INCIDENT REPORT ON THE ALLEGED LOSS OF CELLPHONE UNIT DURING THE "REFRESHER COURSE ON BASIC RESCUE SEMINAR" HELD ON JULY 26, 2016 AT THE TRAINING CENTER, CENTENNIAL BUILDING, SUPREME COURT
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 7, 2018, which reads as follows: AIDSTE
"A.M. No. 2017-15-SC (Re: Incident Report on the Alleged Loss of Cellphone Unit during the "Refresher Course on Basic Rescue Seminar" held on July 26, 2016 at the Training Center, Centennial Building, Supreme Court). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the Memorandum dated January 11, 2018 of the Office of Administrative Services OAS, this Court, on the incident report of Ms. Gislaine C. Juan (SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Ancillary Division, Medical and Dental Services), regarding the alleged loss of her iPhone 4 unit on July 26, 2016 at the Training Center, Centennial Building, Supreme Court; and
(2) the letter dated February 8, 2018 of Mr. Geoffrey Ferido, Utility Worker, Employee Training and Development Division, Office of Administrative Services, this Court, stating that he came to know the existence of this administrative case when he tried to apply for a loan and reiterating some arguments which should be given consideration and requesting that the preponderance of evidence to be used in this administrative matter be akin to that of a criminal case considering that his honor, which he has safeguarded for a long time, is at stake.
For resolution of the Court is the Memorandum dated January 11, 2018 of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), recommending that Geoffrey M. Ferido (Ferido), Utility Worker II, Employee Training and Development Division, OAS, be held liable for simple dishonesty for the loss of the cellphone unit of Gislaine C. Juan (Juan).
This administrative matter stemmed from the incident report of Juan regarding the alleged loss of her iPhone 4 unit on July 26, 2016 at the Training Center, Centennial Building, Supreme Court. The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
[Juan] x x x attended the "Refresher Course on Basic Rescue Seminar" on July 26, 2016, conducted by the Employee Training and Development Division (ETDD), [OAS]. Upon returning at the clinic from the seminar around 4:20 p.m., she noticed that her iPhone 4 unit with yellow jelly casing was missing. Inspite of her efforts to search for her phone, she was not able to find it. She immediately went back to the Training Center to look for it but was not able to find it there, too. She proceeded to the OAS to look for Mr. Jonel M. Candelaria [Candelaria] and [Ferido], who were the assigned training staff. She was informed that [Candelaria] went home already, while [Ferido] was still at the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. When [Ferido] came out, she informed him about the missing cellphone unit. [Ferido] allegedly told her that one of the ladies of the Special Rescue Unit-Bureau of Fire Protection (SRU-BFP) turned-over to him an iPhone 4 unit but he said that it [belonged] to Insp. JL Aaron P. Caro (Insp. Caro). She asked if he remembers the color of the casing of the phone which he gave to Insp. Caro, but [Ferido] answered that he could no longer remember. She asked for the number of the SRU but [Ferido] said that he does not have their number. He instead offered to contact [Candelaria] to ask him regarding the matter. At around 8:28 p.m., she received a text message from [Ferido] informing her that per [Candelaria's] knowledge, he did not see any cellphone unit left except the one handed by the BFP staff to [Ferido]. The following day, when she saw [Candelaria] at the seminar, she asked him if he indeed saw the cellphone unit that was turned over by the SRU staff to [Ferido]. [Candelaria] replied that [Ferido] showed a cellphone unit and asked him who owns it. He told him to ask the SRU staff because he saw it earlier on the table near them. [Juan] also asked [Candelaria] if he remembers the color of the phone's casing and he said, "Opo, yellow jelly casing, at ma'am tinanong ko si [Ferido] kung asan yung ibinigay ng mga taga SRU sa kanya at sagot sa akin ma'am ay ibinigay ko sa kanila."
When the SRU staff arrived, [Candelaria] asked them if they saw a cellphone unit. Ms. Jorie Sheena Lacwasan (Lacwasan) answered "yes" and she gave the cellphone to [Ferido]. [Juan] was able to inquire from Insp. Caro and [Lacwasan] about the model of the cellphone and the color of the casing, and they both answered that it was an iPhone 4 with yellow casing. She informed them that [Ferido] turned-over the unit to them, but [Lacwasan] said that they gave it back to [Ferido] because it does not belong to them. Insp. Caro brought out three (3) units of iPhone 4 and one (1) non-iPhone unit from his pocket and told them that those are his phones and he did not get anything from [Ferido]. AaCTcI
In a Memorandum dated August 3, 2016, [OAS] furnished [Ferido] a copy of the Incident Report and directed him to submit his comment thereon.
In his letter dated August 10, 2016, [Ferido] denied that he took the missing cellphone unit. He narrated that when [Juan] asked him if he saw an iPhone unit left at the Training Center, he answered yes and that he handed it to a BFP-SRU staff. He recalled by saying, "Pero inabot ko po sa kanila (kanila po eh BFP/SRU o kay Sir Caro) kasi ng iabot sa akin ng babae sa SRU sa training center tinaas ko po yung [cellphone] at tinanong ko kay Jonel M. Candelaria kung sa kanya ba iyon at sabi nya hindi. Sabi ko kanino kaya ito at sumagot si Jonel baka sa SRU kasi sa lugar ng SRU nakita noong babaeng SRU at sa aking alaala ay kay Sir Caro ko inabot kasi sya lang ang alam kung gumagamit ng ganoong cellphone." [Juan] asked him if he has the number of the SRU staff or of [Candelaria]. Since he does not have the number of the SRU staff, he volunteered to text and ask [Candelaria] if he saw a cellphone unit left. [Candelaria] replied that he saw none and asked him who owns the cellphone he showed earlier, to which [Ferido] answered, "BNGY ko ndin kinuha kay sir at o kanino sa sru . . . bale txt k Wang ate ging . . ." He texted [Juan] to inform her that [Candelaria] did not see any cellphone left at the Training Center. The following day, he and [Candelaria] still tried to look for the cellphone unit among the bandanas and ties in the training center. When the BFP-SRU personnel arrived, he approached Insp. Caro and asked him if he could show to [Juan] the cellphone unit that he handed him the day before. Insp. Caro brought out his cellphone from his bag and showed it to them. [Juan], however, said that it was not hers.
xxx xxx xxx
On his part, Insp. Caro denied that he received any cellphone unit from [Ferido]. When asked if he saw the cellphone unit, he answered,
"Siguro ay nakita ko yun kasi . . . iba kasi ang table ko. Ang table nila is near the entrance. Sa akin naman, dito sa shortcut. Dito sa may ano . . . dito ang mga gamit ko (hands demonstrating). Yun lang . . . to cut lang kasi ay ini-insist nya na inabot daw nya sa akin. Wala. Hindi ko nakita yung cellphone na yun. Yung time na yun, yun lang yung pag-ano na, alam ko na may cellphone na ipinakita which is similar pero iba yung casing nung sa akin . . . na parang yellow . . . parang ganun . . . transparent . . . Tapos nung ano na, ini-insist nya na iniabot daw nya sa akin. Sabi ko, "Wala kasi ang iniabot monung time na yun na nagliligpit na ng mga gamit . . ." which is yung cellphone konung time na yun na parang naka x x x. Kasi ang version na pinipilit nya is kaya parang nagtataka sya, "Bakit pinipilit sa iyo Sir na iniabot eh hindi mo naman nahawakan yang cellphone?"
After assessing the report and testimonies of those involved, the OAS, in its Memorandum dated January 11, 2018, found Ferido liable of simple dishonesty for the loss of the cellphone unit of [Juan]. The OAS explained:
It is clear from the established facts that [Lacwasan] handed the cellphone unit to [Ferido], as [he] has admitted it in his Comment. x x x [However,] his statement that he handed it to Insp. Caro is belied by the statement of the latter that he did not receive anything from [Ferido]. This was corroborated by the statement of [Lacwasan] that after she handed the cellphone unit to [Ferido], the BFP-SRU staff already left the premises.
It appears that [Ferido] was the last person who got hold of the cellphone unit. His statement that he gave it to Insp. Caro has no leg to stand on. First, his statement "Pero inabot ko po sa kanila (kanila po eh BFP-SRU o kay Sir Caro)" shows that he was not actually sure as to whom he handed the cellphone unit. Second, it appears that it would not have been possible for him to have handed the cellphone to Insp. Caro considering the distance between them at that time. Third, in the natural course of events, it is more logical for a Supreme Court visitor to turn-over an item found within the Court's premises to the SC Security or at least to a Court employee, rather than a Supreme Court employee to turn it over to a visitor. When [Lacwasan] turned-over the cellphone unit to [Ferido], the latter should have at least kept the item for safety instead of turning it over to Insp. Caro who was merely in the Court to conduct training.
The OAS recommended that Ferido be meted the penalty of suspension for five (5) days considering his length of service and this being his first offense. It further recommended that he be required to pay Juan the acquisition cost of the iPhone 4 unit.
After due consideration, the Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the OAS.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty, for the image of the Court is mirrored in the conduct, not only of the Justices, but of every man and woman working thereat. 1 Any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. 2 As the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Thus, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. 3 EcTCAD
Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the less grave offense of simple dishonesty is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense; six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense. Considering, however, that Ferido has been with the Court for almost twenty (20) years since November 1998 and that this is his first offense, the Court finds the recommended penalty of five (5) days suspension with a stern warning of a more severe penalty for a repetition of the same or similar act in the future and with an order requiring Ferido to pay the acquisition cost of the lost iPhone 4 unit to be proper.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the recommendation of the Office of Administrative Services in its Memorandum dated January 11, 2018 is hereby ADOPTED. Geoffrey M. Ferido, Utility Worker II, Employee Training and Development Division, Office of Administrative Services, is found GUILTY of simple dishonesty for the loss of the cellphone unit of Gislaine C. Juan. He is hereby SUSPENDED for five (5) days with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future will warrant a more severe penalty. He is likewise ordered to pay Gislaine C. Juan the acquisition cost of the iPhone 4 unit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, A.M. Nos. 2001-7-SC & 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005.
2.Velasquez v. Inacay, 432 Phil. 140, 146-147 (2002).
3.Rodriguez v. Eugenio, A.M. No. P-06-2216 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2037-P), April 20, 2007.