A.M. No. 2006-09 SC
RE: REPORT ON THE SERIES OF THEFT IN THE PREMISES OF THE SUPREME COURT
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
A.M. No. 2006-09 SC Re: Report on the Series of Theft in the Premises of the Supreme Court
The Court's en Banc Resolution
1. Consider the issuance of a directive to the Office of the Administrative Services (OAS) for the filling up of all vacant permanent items in the Security Division and the possible hiring, depending upon the results of the NBIís study of the Courtís security requirements, of additional casual watchmen.
2. Request the NBI to undertake an independent investigation on the reported theft incidents and to submit the corresponding report and recommendation.
3. Enjoin Mr. Pablo to investigate possible security lapses and to implement corrective and preventive measures to obviate similar losses from theft.
Atty. Candelaria, in her motion for reconsideration, excepts from the courses of action set forth in the en banc Resolution, stating in gist the following observations:
1. The Court ought not to have totally disregarded the OASí recommendation to reprimand, with warning, all security personnel, inclusive of Mr. Pablo, for laxity and ineptness.
2. It is unfair for the Court to gloss over protocol practices, and direct the OAS to fill up vacancies on the basis alone of bare estimation of Mr. Pablo - whose division is under OAS supervision - of the security situation obtaining as if augmenting the present security staff complement would solve the problem.
3. An NBI parallel investigation is unnecessary.
The desired reconsideration is untenable.
At bottom, Atty. Candelaria demurs on the Courtís Resolution for
not according due regard to her recommendations/suggestions embodied in her
Lest it be overlooked, a reprimand is a penalty.† Reprimanding all personnel of the Security Division or its Chief, as presently urged by Atty. Candelaria, even before their guilt for some administrative infraction/s has been established in an investigation, if one is requested, following the filing of a formal complaint, would be to trifle with the presumption of innocence. †Worse still, it would be violative of the constitutional injunction against subjecting an officer or employee of the civil service to disciplinary action without due process.
To be sure, the Court considered the recommendations adverted to and the premises holding them together before issuing the Resolution subject of this motion. †In the Courtís best judgment, however, the circumstances surrounding the matter call for the issuance of the Resolution in question.† Such Resolution, however, is not reflective of the soundness or lack of it of the OASí recommendation or the bases therefor. †Nether should the Court's disposition under the premises be taken as a final word on the culpability or non-culpability of the personnel involved, should evidence dictate otherwise.
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(SGd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court