Re: Illegal and Unauthorized Digging and Excavation Activities Inside the Supreme Court Compound, Baguio City

Grave misconduct requires manifest corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, and is committed when public employees use their official positions to engage in unauthorized treasure-hunting for personal enrichment; furthermore, long years of service may be considered as a mitigating factor to temper the penalty of dismissal to a lesser suspension in administrative disciplinary proceedings.

Maintenance personnel assigned to the Supreme Court Compound in Baguio City engaged in clandestine digging and excavation activities near the residential cottages of Associate Justices, ostensibly to search for hidden Japanese treasures. The activities, conducted between 2013 and 2015, compromised the structural integrity of the cottages and violated the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, prompting both internal administrative investigation and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) inquiry.

• The Complaint: On January 6, 2016, Elvie A. Carbonel, a casual Utility Worker II at the SC Compound-BC, filed a complaint before the OAS against Engr. Teofilo G. Sanchez (Supervising Judicial Staff Officer and OIC of the Maintenance Unit) and Edgardo Z. Hallera (casual Utility Worker II). Carbonel alleged that Engr. Sanchez ordered Hallera to conduct excavations near Cottages F and J (occupied by Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., respectively) to search for hidden Japanese treasures, thereby compromising the structural soundness of the cottages' foundations.
• Initial Investigation: An OAS three-man team inspected the site on January 8, 2016, finding no apparent signs of disturbance initially, but recommended a formal investigation after employees admitted that a hole had been deliberately concealed by Hallera.
• Respondents' Denials: In their respective submissions dated January 14, 2016, Engr. Sanchez categorically denied ordering any treasure hunt, attributing Carbonel's allegations to exaggerations and questioning her expertise on structural integrity. Hallera admitted digging a four-foot hole near Cottage J but claimed it was to obtain fertile soil for gardening, not for treasure hunting, and denied compromising the cottage's stability.
• NBI Investigation: Acting on Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen's request, the NBI conducted an independent investigation. In its June 7, 2016 Final Report, the NBI identified two unauthorized excavation sites: (1) below the stairs of Cottage F (2013-2014) involving Hallera and Carbonel, with Julio corroborating that Carbonel pointed to the stockroom where a metal detector indicated strong signals; and (2) at the front yard of Cottage J (2014-April 2015) involving Engr. Sanchez and Hallera, supported by a wooden frame, with De Guzman testifying that Sanchez knew of the digging ("malalim na pala ano...") and even assisted Hallera by holding a flashlight. The National Museum confirmed no permits were issued for treasure-hunting in the area.
• OAS Consolidated Findings: The OAS adopted the NBI findings with modifications, finding sufficient basis to hold Hallera and Carbonel administratively liable for grave misconduct but finding the allegations against Engr. Sanchez unsubstantiated due to lack of corroboration and possible ill motive on De Guzman's part. The OAS recommended dismissal for Hallera and Carbonel, and a one-year suspension for Engr. Sanchez for simple neglect of duty in failing to act prudently upon receiving information about the excavation.

• Grave Misconduct: Carbonel maintained that Engr. Sanchez ordered Hallera to conduct excavation activities near Cottages F and J to search for hidden Japanese treasures, constituting grave misconduct and compromising the structural integrity of the cottages.

• Denial of Authorization: Engr. Sanchez categorically denied surreptitiously ordering Hallera to dig for treasures, insisting that Carbonel exaggerated the depth of the hole and lacked expertise to claim structural damage.
• Alternative Explanation: Hallera denied treasure-hunting allegations, explaining that he dug a four-foot hole near Cottage J solely to obtain fertile soil for gardening purposes, and asserted that the excavation could not have affected the cottage's structural stability.
• Lack of Corroboration: Engr. Sanchez implied that De Guzman's testimony against him was tainted by improper motives or vengeance arising from past unfavorable treatment.

• Grave Misconduct: Whether Hallera and Carbonel committed grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by engaging in unauthorized treasure-hunting activities within the SC Compound.
• Supervisor's Liability: Whether Engr. Sanchez committed simple neglect of duty by failing to investigate or report the unauthorized excavation activities upon discovery.
• Penalties: Whether the penalties of termination for the casual employees and dismissal/suspension for the supervisor are appropriate under the circumstances.

• Grave Misconduct Established: Hallera and Carbonel were found guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Taking advantage of their positions as caretakers of Cottages F and J, they engaged in covert treasure-hunting activities for personal enrichment without the Court's knowledge or permission, violating Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which mandates exclusive dedication to official duties during working hours. Such actions manifest corruption and flagrant disregard of established rules, tarnishing the image and integrity of the public office.
• Penalty for Grave Misconduct: Given that Hallera and Carbonel are casual employees, termination of casual employment was imposed in lieu of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement or reappointment to any public office.
• Simple Neglect of Duty Established: Engr. Sanchez was found guilty of simple neglect of duty. Upon being informed of the excavation near Cottage J, he merely directed the site's immediate closure without initiating an investigation to determine administrative liability or reporting the incident to higher management, constituting disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.
• Mitigated Penalty for Supervisor: Although the offense constituted a second offense of simple neglect of duty (having been previously fined and severely warned), warranting dismissal, the penalty was tempered to a two-year suspension without pay in light of his ten years of service in the Judiciary as a mitigating factor under Section 48(n) of the RRACCS, with a final warning that repetition would be dealt with more seriously.

• Grave Misconduct — Defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. To constitute grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules must be manifest and established by substantial evidence. Corruption is present when an official unlawfully uses his station to procure benefit for himself or another contrary to duty. The Court applied this to find that unauthorized treasure-hunting by employees using their official positions constitutes grave misconduct.
• Simple Neglect of Duty — Signifies a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is classified as a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. The Court found that a supervisor's failure to investigate or report known unauthorized activities constitutes simple neglect.
• Mitigating Circumstances in Administrative Cases — Section 48(n) of the RRACCS allows mitigating factors to temper the harshness of administrative penalties. Long years of service in the Judiciary may be considered as a mitigating factor to reduce the penalty from dismissal to suspension, notwithstanding that the offense is a second offense.

• "Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. To constitute as grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence."
• "Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, is present when an official or fiduciary person unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others."
• "Simple neglect of duty signifies a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."
• "While the Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, it also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy."

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015 — Cited for the definition of misconduct and the elements of grave misconduct (corruption, clear intent, flagrant disregard).
• Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569 (2005) — Cited for the definition of misconduct.
• Re: Theft of the Used Galvanized Iron (GI) Sheets in the SC Compound, Baguio City, 665 Phil. 1 (2011) — Cited for the definition of corruption as an element of grave misconduct.
• Cabigao v. Nery, 719 Phil. 475 (2013) — Cited for the principle that the Court may temper harsh judgment with mercy in administrative cases.
• Clemente v. Bautista, 710 Phil. 10 (2013) — Cited for the definition of simple neglect of duty.

• Section 46, Rule 10, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) — Classifies grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as grave offenses.
• Section 50, Rule 10, RRACCS — Provides that when a respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty for the most serious offense shall be imposed, with the rest considered aggravating circumstances.
• Section 48(n), RRACCS — Lists mitigating circumstances, including length of service, which may be considered to temper the penalty.
• Section 1, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel — Mandates court personnel to perform duties properly and diligently and to commit exclusively to official business during working hours.
• Section 48, Republic Act No. 10066 (National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009) — Cited by the NBI regarding the prohibition against unauthorized excavation of cultural properties, though not applied by the Court in the administrative aspect.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO (Chief Justice), ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR., TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DIOSDADO M. PERALTA, LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO, JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA, BIENVENIDO L. REYES, ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE, MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN, FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA, and ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA.