Re: Unauthorized Distribution of Pamphlets Concerning the Election Protest of Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.

A court employee who facilitates unauthorized access to the justices' offices by strangers distributing partisan materials related to a pending case is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and a claim of lack of knowledge of the materials' contents does not exculpate the employee from liability.

Luningning R. Marin served as Chief Judicial Staff Officer in the Office of the Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy, having been with the Supreme Court since 1987 and holding supervisory positions since 2009. She had a long-standing personal friendship with Soledad G. Rozon, a former colleague, and had known Soledad's son Edgar since childhood. Both Soledad and Edgar worked for the office of former senator Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., who had a pending election protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service govern the classification and penalties for administrative offenses, including conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On July 1, 2019, two persons later identified as Arifa Macacua Jamil and Zeus Alonzo entered the New Supreme Court Building. Security personnel raised no objection because Marin fetched them from the pedestrian entrance and informed the guards that the two would file documents and give something to the justices' offices. Marin had been contacted that day by Edgar G. Rozon, the son of her friend and former colleague Soledad G. Rozon, who called to say he was "going to file or distribute something" in the Court. Marin had known Edgar since childhood and trusted him. She also knew that Edgar and his mother worked for former senator Marcos, who had a pending election protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, but did not think much of it.

In Edgar's stead, Jamil and Alonzo arrived, introducing themselves as his co-workers. Marin accompanied them through the justices' offices, starting from the uppermost floor. When they reached the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc on the third floor, they encountered Process Server Joselito Santos. Marin asked Santos to accompany Jamil and Alonzo to the offices still unvisited so she could return to work. Santos agreed, as he was about to enter the justices' offices anyway to distribute the notice of raffle results. He did not know who the two were or what they were distributing. Throughout, Jamil and Alonzo distributed envelopes containing a 39-page pamphlet entitled "The Election Protest of Bongbong Marcos, A Simplified Illustration as of May 2019," which advocated for a ruling in Marcos's favor in his pending election protest.

On July 11, 2019, the Office of Administrative Services received copies of the Incident Report and CCTV footage from the Security Division and directed both Marin and Santos to explain. In her July 18, 2019 letter, Marin narrated the foregoing circumstances and claimed she was victimized by a friend. Santos, in his own letter, explained that he was merely performing his duties and did not actively participate in the distribution. The Office of Administrative Services found that the CCTV footage showed Jamil and Alonzo were merely following Santos, who was simply busy at work and did not appear to be colluding with them. Santos was recommended for clearance. As to Marin, the Office of Administrative Services found that her lack of knowledge of the envelope's contents did not free her from charges, reasoning that meeting strangers instead of her friend should have put her on guard, but instead of inquiring what their business was, she spoke to the guards on their behalf — a grossly negligent act amounting to conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On August 30, 2019, Marin sent a further letter expressing remorse, acknowledging her "error of judgment," and seeking the Court's indulgence, stressing her untarnished record and three decades of service.

• Lack of Intent: Respondent maintained that she genuinely regretted any error of judgment in assisting her friend's son and that her kindness had been abused, arguing the unauthorized distribution would not have occurred but for the deception of people she trusted.
• Unblemished Record: Respondent stressed that she has an untarnished record and that working in the Court for the past three decades has been an integral part of her life, seeking the Court's consideration and indulgence for a second chance.
• Lack of Knowledge of Contents: Respondent contended that she did not know the contents of the pamphlets being distributed, implying she should not be held liable for the consequences of the distribution.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Chief Judicial Staff Officer Luningning R. Marin is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Imposable Penalty: Whether the penalty recommended by the Office of Administrative Services should be modified in light of mitigating circumstances.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Marin was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, her gross negligence in facilitating unauthorized access to the justices' offices by strangers distributing partisan pamphlets constituting acts that tarnish the image and integrity of the Judiciary.
• Imposable Penalty: The penalty was reduced from the recommended fine of ₱3,000.00, the Court exercising leniency in light of Marin's acknowledgment of her mistake, expression of remorse, and first offense in three decades of service, while issuing a stern warning against repetition.

• Administrative Liability: Laws do not define or enumerate specific acts deemed prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but such acts are understood to be those that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish — or tend to diminish — the people's faith in the Judiciary. The conduct need not be related or connected to the public officer's official functions. Marin's act was undoubtedly detrimental to the reputation of the Court and the entire Judiciary. She carelessly allowed Jamil and Alonzo's distribution of pamphlets advocating for a party in a case pending before the Court and facilitated their easy access to the justices' offices without going through the scrutiny of security personnel. She made it possible for Marcos to unduly influence the Court in its ruling. She knew that both her friend Soledad and Soledad's son Edgar worked for the office of Marcos, who had a pending case before the Court. Her claim of not knowing the pamphlets' contents could not excuse her, as meeting strangers instead of her friend should have put her on guard. As the Office of Administrative Services found, it was incredibly reckless for a court employee of her rank to fail to grasp that any direct transaction with an office of a Justice of the Supreme Court is not a matter to be taken lightly. Her gross negligence was not the behavior expected of court employees, more so of one who had served the Court for more than three decades and held several supervisory positions. Court employees must exercise their duties with the utmost care and responsibility, as it is the imperative sacred duty of each and every one in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice. Marin failed to be circumspect in balancing her personal dealings with a friend and her commitment to protect the institution. Her failure to prudently act may impair the Court's image, cast doubt on the impartiality of the justices, and ultimately undermine the public's trust in the Judiciary.

• Imposable Penalty: Under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year on the first offense and dismissal from service on the second. The 2017 Rules, however, grant the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in imposing the penalty. The Court has refrained from imposing actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors such as length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, feelings of remorse, advanced age, family circumstances, and other humanitarian and equitable considerations. Marin acknowledged her mistake, expressed remorse, and asked for a second chance. This was her first offense in three decades of service. Accordingly, the Court employed some degree of leniency and reduced the imposed fine, with a stern warning that repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — Acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish — or tend to diminish — the people's faith in the Judiciary. Such conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of the public office and need not be related or connected to the public officer's official functions. In this case, Marin's gross negligence in facilitating unauthorized access to the justices' offices by strangers distributing partisan pamphlets constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as it undermined public confidence in the impartiality of the Judiciary.

• Standard of Conduct for Court Employees — Every court employee must exercise their duties with the utmost care and responsibility, and their conduct must be beyond reproach and free from suspicion that may sully the image of the Judiciary. Court personnel must avoid any impression of impropriety not only in the performance of official duties but also in conducting themselves outside or beyond their official functions. The Court applied this standard to hold Marin accountable, emphasizing that her rank and tenure should have made her aware of established procedures and that she ought to have directed the visitors to the proper office rather than personally facilitating their access to the justices' offices.

• Mitigating Circumstances in Administrative Penalties — Under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the disciplining authority has discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in imposing penalties. Factors such as length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse, advanced age, family circumstances, and humanitarian and equitable considerations may warrant a reduction of the imposable penalty. The Court applied this doctrine to reduce Marin's penalty, citing her first offense, acknowledgment of error, remorse, and three decades of service.

• "Facilitating an unauthorized act is conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and a claim of lack of knowledge cannot exculpate a court employee from liability." — This opening statement of the Resolution articulates the controlling principle that ignorance of the nature or consequences of an unauthorized act does not absolve a court employee from administrative liability.

• "[I]t was incredibly reckless and unthinkable for a court employee ranked as high as a SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer to fail to grasp that any direct transaction with an office of a Justice of the Supreme Court, much less all of them, is not a matter to be taken lightly." — This passage, adopted by the Court from the Office of Administrative Services' findings, defines the heightened standard of care expected of senior court employees and underscores the gravity of Marin's negligence.

• "Marin failed to be circumspect in balancing her personal dealing with a friend and her commitment to protect this institution. Her failure to prudently act may impair this Court's image, cast doubt on the impartiality of the justices, and ultimately undermine the public's trust in the Judiciary." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi connecting Marin's personal negligence to institutional harm, explaining why her conduct warranted administrative sanction.

• Marigomen vs. Manabat, Jr., 676 Phil. 157 (2011) — Cited for the definition of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as acts that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the people's faith in the Judiciary.
• Pia vs. Gervacio, Jr., 710 Phil. 196 (2013) — Cited for the principle that conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service constitutes acts that tarnish the image and integrity of one's public office.
• Largo vs. Court of Appeals, 563 Phil. 293 (2007) — Cited for the proposition that conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service need not be related or connected to the public officer's official functions.
• Consolacion vs. Gambito, 690 Phil. 44 (2012) — Cited for the doctrine that the conduct of every court personnel must be beyond reproach and free from suspicion, and that they must avoid any impression of impropriety both in and outside the performance of official duties.
• Marquez vs. Clores-Ramos, 391 Phil. 1 (2000) — Cited for the principle that it is the imperative sacred duty of each and every court employee to maintain the Court's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
• Ferrer vs. Gapasin, Sr., 298 Phil. 572 (1993) — Cited for the standard that court employees must act with propriety and decorum and be above and beyond suspicion.
• Re: Unauthorized Travel Abroad of Jonathan R. Geronimo, A.M. No. P-20-4058, September 9, 2020 — Cited for the principle that the Court has refrained from imposing actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors such as length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse, and humanitarian considerations.

• Section 50(B)(10), 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Classifies conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year on the first offense and dismissal from service on the second. The Court referenced this provision to establish the prescribed penalty range for Marin's offense.
• Section 53, 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in imposing the penalty. The Court relied on this provision to justify reducing Marin's fine in light of her acknowledgment of error, remorse, and length of unblemished service.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Gaerlan, and Rosario, JJ., concurred. Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and Delos Santos, JJ., were on official leave.