Albano-Madrid vs. Apolonio

Court personnel who play cards inside the judge’s chambers during office hours are guilty of simple misconduct even without proof of betting or gambling, because such acts constitute a violation of public accountability and impair the people’s faith in the judiciary.

A tabloid article reported that on July 18, 2001, NBI operatives raided the chambers of Executive Judge Ruben Plata of the MTCC, Santiago City and caught court employees playing cards during office hours. A concerned citizen sent the news clipping to the Chief Justice. Judge Plata clarified that the chambers were vacant because the sitting judge was assigned elsewhere and that he had instructed staff to man their posts before leaving for a hearing. The matter was referred to Executive RTC Judge Fe Albano-Madrid for a status report, which confirmed the incident and led to the filing of the present administrative complaint.

• The NBI Raid: On July 18, 2001, at around 3:00 P.M., operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation raided the chambers of Executive Judge Ruben Plata of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Santiago City, Isabela, acting on information that court employees were gambling during office hours. The operatives apprehended six personnel engaged in a card game. A photograph taken at 3:10 P.M. showed respondents, clad in office uniforms, playing cards inside the judge’s chambers. Identified participants were Eugenio Taguba (Process Server, Branch 2), Demetrio Tolentino, Jr. (Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court), Villamor Bautista (Cash Clerk, Office of the Clerk of Court), Maripi Apolonio (Stenographer, Branch 2), Andrealyn Andres (Stenographer, Branch 2), and Ronald Valdez (Clerk, Branch 2).
• Prior Warnings: The news story indicated that Judge Plata had previously warned his employees against gambling during office hours because litigants had complained that staff were frequently unavailable. Despite the warning, the practice persisted.
• Respondents’ Admission: In a joint affidavit submitted to Judge Albano-Madrid, respondents admitted playing cards inside the chambers during office hours but contended they were not strictly “gambling” because no bets were involved. They claimed the card game was part of a “despedida” party for respondent Andres, who was transferring to another court.
• Apolonio’s Retraction: Subsequently, respondent Maripi A. Apolonio executed a separate affidavit retracting her earlier admission. She disclaimed any participation in the card game, asserting she was occupied with transcribing stenographic notes at the time, and had no time for such pursuits due to her workload, four children, and law studies.
• Investigating Judge’s Findings: Judge Albano-Madrid found sufficient basis to hold respondents liable for misconduct, stating that their disgraceful conduct tarnished the image of the court and the entire judiciary. She recommended a one-month suspension.

• Liability for Misconduct: The investigating judge concluded that playing cards in the judge’s chambers during office hours constituted misconduct that tarnished the judiciary’s reputation. The Office of the Court Administrator adopted this position, recommending a one-month suspension as the suitable penalty for simple misconduct.

• No Gambling, No Misconduct: Respondents argued that the card game was part of a farewell party and that no money was involved, thus it did not amount to gambling and should not be considered misconduct.
• Apolonio’s Non-Participation: Respondent Apolonio later claimed she was not among those playing cards, asserting she was busy with stenographic work at the time of the raid.

• Misconduct: Whether court employees who play cards inside the judge’s chambers during office hours, without monetary bets, are guilty of simple misconduct.
• Penalty: What is the proper imposable penalty for the proven conduct.
• Apolonio’s Liability: Whether Apolonio’s retraction exculpates her from administrative liability.

• Misconduct: Playing cards inside the judge’s chambers during office hours constituted simple misconduct notwithstanding the absence of proof of betting. Gambling in its strict sense requires a game of chance involving monetary stakes, but the gravamen of the offense was not the gambling per se; it was the unprofessional behavior of court employees loafing during office hours in a place charged with judicial dignity. Such conduct violated the norm of public accountability and diminished public faith in the judiciary. The photograph showing respondents in uniform inside the chambers at 3:10 P.M. was conclusive evidence of the impropriety.
• Penalty: Under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989, implementing the Code of Ethical Standards (Republic Act No. 6713), simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first violation. Since this was respondents’ first offense, the minimum penalty of one month and one day suspension without pay was imposed.
• Apolonio’s Liability: Apolonio’s subsequent affidavit retracting her admission was a mere afterthought that failed to overcome the earlier joint affidavit and photographic evidence. No substantial explanation supported the change in sworn statements; thus, she was equally guilty of simple misconduct.

• Simple Misconduct by Court Personnel — Playing cards inside a judge’s chambers during office hours, regardless of whether bets are involved, constitutes simple misconduct. The exacting standards of conduct required of all court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, demand that their behavior be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion of impropriety, both inside and outside the court. (Citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Diaz, 303 SCRA 243; Marquez v. Clores-Ramos, 336 SCRA 122; Agarao v. Judge Parentela, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1561; Cruz v. Villar, A.M. No. P-00-1441).
• Public Accountability of Court Employees — Every office in the government service is a public trust, and no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness than a position in the judiciary. Loafing or engaging in games during office hours inside court premises violates the Code of Judicial Ethics and warrants administrative sanction.

• “Worth reiterating, although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary.” — This passage anchors the heightened standard of conduct demanded of judicial employees.
• “Such act or conduct that violates the norm of public accountability or diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary could never be tolerated or condoned.” — This articulates the ratio for penalizing the card game despite the lack of monetary bets.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Diaz, 303 SCRA 243 (1999) — Followed for the principle that court personnel must maintain conduct beyond reproach.
• Marquez vs. Clores-Ramos, 336 SCRA 122 (2000) — Followed for the rule that court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety.
• Agarao vs. Judge Parentela, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1561 (2001) — Followed; stressed adherence to exacting standards of morality and decency.
• Rabe v. Flores, 272 SCRA 415 (1997) — Cited for the principle that no government position demands greater moral righteousness than the judiciary.
• Castillo v. Buencillo, 354 SCRA 641 (2001) — Cited for the strict definition of gambling as a game of chance involving money.
• Macalua v. Tiu, Jr., 275 SCRA 320 (1997) — Cited for the schedule of penalties under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999.

• Section on Penalties, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30, s. 1989 — This circular, implementing Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Ethical Standards), classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense and prescribes a penalty of suspension ranging from one month and one day to six months for the first violation. The minimum period was applied because respondents were first-time offenders.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concurred.