Given the foregoing, We find that there are adequate grounds to hold respondents administratively liable.
First. The act of the respondents in causing the removal of several pages in a copy of the 30 May 2011Agenda is a malevolent transgression of their duties as court personnel—particularly, as employees detailed at the OCC-SD. The act is unauthorized and a blatant disregard of the standard operating procedures observed by the office in handling confidential documents, such as the Agenda. It compromised the ability of the OCC-SD to efficiently perform its functions and also imperiled the environment of confidentiality the office is supposed to be clothed with.
As court employees, respondents clearly committed a willful breach of the trust reposed upon them by this Court. They thereby violated Sections 1 and 3, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel,[78]to wit:
CANON IV
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
xxx.
SECTION 3. Court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within their control.
This provision does not prohibit amendment, correction or expungement of records or documents pursuant to a court order. (Emphasis supplied)
Second. The acts of the respondents fall squarely under the offense Grave Misconduct. In Valera v. Ombudsman,[79] We defined the offense as follows:
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or disregard of established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.[80] (Emphasis supplied)
Rule IV, Section 52(A) (3) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases[81] in the Civil Service, on the other hand, classifies Grave Misconduct as a grave offense punishable with Dismissal even in its first commission.
Third. The fact that respondents Madeja and Florendo merely induced the removal of, but did not actually remove, the missing pages from the subject Agenda, do not make their liability any less than that of respondent Delgado. After all, the evidence in this case adequately shows the existence of connivance among the respondents.
The evidence in this case establishes that respondent Delgado came to remove the missing pages from the subject Agenda because he acceded to the request of respondents Madeja and Florendo.[82] The removal of the Agenda pages was undoubtedly done for the benefit of respondents Madeja and Florendo.
Verily, the cajoling employed by respondents Madeja and Florendo is as much a part of the Grave Misconduct as the act of removing the Agenda pages itself. The proposal is intricately linked and inseparable with the submission. As to their liability, therefore, Respondents Madeja and Floredo must stand in equal footing with respondent Delgado.
Fourth. This Court had already held that the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of an office involved in the administration of justice, from the highest judicial official to the lowest personnel, requires them to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.[83] Court employees, as the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel puts it, “serve as sentinels of justice” and “any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people’s confidence in it.”[84]
In the case at bench, the respondents palpably failed to meet the high standard expected from them as court employees. Their conduct is neither excusable nor tolerable. The respondents, through their acts, have proven themselves to be unfit for continued employment in the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the respondents Eddie V. Delgado, Utility Worker II, Joseph Lawrence M. Madeja, Clerk IV and Wilfredo A. Florendo, Utility Worker II, all of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Second Division are hereby DISMISSED from the service, with FORFEITURE OF ALL BENEFITS, except accrued leave benefits, and WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement or reappointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED."
