Marigomen v. Labar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Lucila M. Cad-Enjambre, Assistant Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, Cebu Station (CA-Cebu), caught Ronelo G. Labar, a driver at the CA-Cebu, along with two co-terminous employees and an unidentified male, playing cards with money on the table under the staircase behind the office building. This occurred on January 25, 2012, at approximately 3:35 PM. Procedural History: Atty. Cad-Enjambre issued a memorandum to Labar requiring him to explain his actions. Labar responded, admitting he was playing cards after finishing his tasks and claiming he had forgotten about the office memorandum prohibiting gambling and loitering in unauthorized areas. Atty. Cad-Enjambre then filed a letter-complaint charging Labar with violation of the April 14, 2011 Memorandum and SC Administrative Circular No. 1-99. The case was referred to Investigating Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, who formally charged Labar with insubordination. After investigation, Atty. Cad-Enjambre's report recommended Labar be held liable for violation of reasonable office rules and gambling, with a penalty of reprimand. However, Justice Ingles recommended suspension for one month and one day for insubordination, citing Labar's in flagrante delicto commission of the acts as showing a lack of regard for office policy, but mitigated by his admission and remorse. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with Justice Ingles' findings and recommendation for suspension. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on whether Labar should be held administratively liable for insubordination under Section 52 (B) (5), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RURACCS), as recommended by Justice Ingles and the OCA, or for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law under Section 52 (C) (3) and (5) of the same Rules, as recommended by Atty. Cad-Enjambre.
Issue(s)
Whether Ronelo G. Labar should be held administratively liable for insubordination for playing cards and loitering within the Court of Appeals premises during office hours. Whether Labar's actions constitute a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Ronelo G. Labar guilty of violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and Gambling Prohibited by Law under Section 52 (C) (3) and (5), respectively, of Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. He was reprimanded, with a warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court disagreed with the OCA's recommendation to hold Labar liable for insubordination.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Labar should be held liable for insubordination: The Court ruled that Labar's acts of loitering in the maintenance section without official business and without a pass slip, and gambling thereat during office hours, do not constitute insubordination. Insubordination is defined as a refusal to obey an order which a superior officer is entitled to give and have obeyed, importing a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer. The Court found that Labar's transgressions, while violating the April 14, 2011 Memorandum, did not sufficiently demonstrate a refusal to abide by it. The records were bereft of evidence showing that his presence and subsequent act of gambling were deliberately and intentionally done to defy the Memorandum. Therefore, he could not be held guilty of insubordination. On the issue of whether Labar should be held liable for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law: The Court found Labar liable under these provisions. His unjustified presence at the maintenance section without official business or a valid pass slip directly contravened the April 14, 2011 Memorandum, falling under Section 52 (C) (3) of the RURACCS for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. Furthermore, his act of gambling on the same incident constituted gambling prohibited by law under Section 52 (C) (5) of the same Rules. The Court considered Labar's admission of guilt, his apology, and his vow not to repeat the offense, along with it being his first administrative infraction, to impose the penalty of reprimand instead of suspension.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarified that while respondent Ronelo G. Labar's actions of loitering in a restricted area and gambling during office hours violated the April 14, 2011 Memorandum and Administrative Circular No. 1-99, these acts did not constitute insubordination. Insubordination requires a willful or intentional disregard of a lawful and reasonable instruction from a superior. The Court found that Labar's infractions, though improper, did not demonstrate such willful defiance, and thus, he should be held liable for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and gambling prohibited by law, warranting a reprimand instead of suspension.