ATTY. MELITA S. RECTO-SAMBAJON, PETITIONER, VS.
PUBLIC
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RESPONDENT.
DOCTRINE: "Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer."It is
qualified as grave when it is attended with corruption or wilful intent to violate the law or
to disregard established rules—otherwise the misconduct is only simple.
FACTS:
- On 17 June 2009, Chief Public Attorney Persida V. Rueda-Acosta (Chief Acosta)
summoned petitioner Atty. Recto-Sambajon due to the latter's reaction to her
reassignment from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) Legal Research Service -
Central Office to the PAO Valenzuela City office.
- Initially, Atty. Recto-Sambajon denied reports that she had cried over her supposed
reassignment. She, however, was overcome by emotion and uttered in anger, "Yung
mga naghahatid [ng] maling impormasyon kay Chief ay paduduguin ko ang mata."
- On 18 June 2009, Atty. Recto-Sambajon, together with Atty. Froilan Cabarios,
Officer-in-Charge of the Field Operation and Statistics Office, went to the office of
Atty. Amelia C. Garchitorena (Atty. Garchitorena), head of the Special and
Appealed Cases (SACS) and asked Atty. Garchitorena whether Herminia Polo, a
SACS staff, told Chief Acosta that she had cried after learning of her reassignment.
Atty. Garchitorena responded that she told Chief Acosta that Atty. Recto-Sambajon
cried when the latter learned that she would be reassigned, and that during their
conversation, Atty. Recto-Sambajon threatened "[w]hoever will feed any wrong
information to the Chief, I will shoot them conjoined through the eyes."
- On 22 June 2009, after the flag ceremony, Atty. Recto-Sambajon asked Nelson
Acevedo (Acevedo), an administrative staff, where Boongaling was. When
Acevedo told her that Boongaling was at the conference room, she responded,
"[s]abihin mo sa kanya, pag may nangyari sa anak ko babarilin ko siya." While
Acevedo was trying to pacify Atty. Recto-Sambajon, Boongaling emerged from the
conference room and called Acevedo. After seeing Boongaling, Atty. Recto-
Sambajon reiterated her threats and told the former she would shoot her should
anything happen to her child as she was pregnant at the time. For fear that Atty.
Recto-Sambajon would carry out her threats, Boongaling reported the incident to
Chief Acosta on the same day.
THE PROCEEDINGS:
- On 17 August 2009, Atty. Recto-Sambajon was formally charged for Grave
Misconduct and for being Notoriously Undesirable. In the PAO's 8 December 2009
Decision,[10] Atty. Mosing found her guilty of the offenses charged and accordingly
dismissed her from the service. Chief Acosta approved the decision. Atty. Mosing
opined that there was substantial evidence to find Atty. Recto-Sambajon guilty of
Grave Misconduct and for being Notoriously Undesirable, noting that Atty. Recto-
Sambajon's remarks were tantamount to Grave Threats punishable under Article
282 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Aggrieved, Atty. Recto-Sambajon appealed before the CSC. In its 17 May 2010
Resolution,[11] the CSC partially granted Atty. Recto-Sambajon's appeal. It
concurred that she failed to observe the standards expected of a public servant by
intimidating or threatening her colleagues. The CSC, however, disagreed that Atty.
Recto-Sambajon's hostile remarks amounted to Grave Misconduct because it was
not shown that she was tainted with a depraved and corrupt mind and that she
intended to violate the law or to exhibit a flagrant disregard of established rule.
- In its assailed 25 May 2011 Decision, the CA reversed and set aside the CSC
resolution as it disagreed with the CSC that Atty. Recto-Sambajon was guilty only
of Simple Misconduct because the grave threats she uttered displayed a violent,
dangerous, if not murderous, tendency towards her colleagues. The CA explained
the nature of Atty. Recto-Sambajon's threats shows that it was not merely an error
in judgment but motivated by a wrongful intent. It emphasized that her remarks
amounted to grave threats.
ISSUE:
WON PETITIONER IS GUILTY FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND OF BEING
NOTORIOUSLY UNDESIRABLE?
HELD:
GRAVE MISCONDUCT - NO
"Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer."It is qualified as
grave when it is attended with corruption or wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard
established rules—otherwise the misconduct is only simple. In addition, in order that an
action be deemed a "misconduct" it must have a direct relation to and be connected with
the performance of his official duties amounting either to maladministration or wilful,
intentional neglect or failure to discharge the duties of the office.
The Court agrees with the CA's observation that Atty. Recto-Sambajon's threats should not
be treated lightly as it may have serious repercussions considering that it involved infliction
of bodily harm or death. However, the remarks in question are not tantamount to grave
misconduct because it lacks the element of direct relation to the performance of official
duties.
Instead, Atty. Recto-Sambajon's actions constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service, a grave offense under the RRACCS. Unlike Grave Misconduct,
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service need not be related to or connected
with the public officer's official function as it suffices that the act in question tarnishes the
image and integrity of his/her public office.[25] Thus, it is broader as it encompasses all
transgressions which may put a particular public office in a bad light.
BEING NOTORIOUSLY UNDESIRABLE - YES
In the administrative offense of Being Notoriously Undesirable, a two-fold test is
employed, to wit: (1) whether it is common knowledge or generally known as universally
believed to be true or manifest to the world that the employee committed the acts imputed
against him; and (2) whether he had contracted the habit for any of the enumerated
misdemeanors. Applying these, the Court finds Atty. Recto-Sambajon guilty of Being
Notoriously Undesirable.
In this case, the threatening remarks made by Atty. Recto-Sambajon were generally known
considering that she made those remarks in the presence of several colleagues. In fact, she
admitted to have uttered such but justified it as an emotional outburst. Further, Atty. Recto-
Sambajon manifested a predilection to be violent with her colleagues.
We note that Atty. Recto-Sambajon had threatened her colleagues on several consecutive
days and even had the audacity to utter menacing remarks in the presence of Chief Acosta.
Her threats cannot simply be treated as an emotional outburst considering that she made
them on several occasions. More importantly, the hostile remarks were of a grave nature
considering that she had threatened, not merely to inflict physical pain, but to cause death.
