A.M. No. P-08-2535. June 23, 2010.

*
(Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2022-P and A.M. No. 04-434-RTC)
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
complainant, vs. FLORENCIO M. REYES,1 Officer-in-
Charge, and RENE DE GUZMAN, Clerk, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, respondents.

Courts; Court Personnel; Administrative Investigations; A

resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere
request, and should be complied with promptly and completely—
failure to comply betrays, not only a recalcitrant streak in
character, but also disrespect for the lawful order and directive of
the Court.—As correctly observed by the OCA, De Guzman has
shown his propensity to defy the directives of this Court.
However, at this juncture, we are no longer wont to countenance
such disrespectful behavior. As we have categorically declared in
Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Fe P. Ganzan,
MCTC, Jasaan, Claveria, Misamis Oriental, 600 SCRA 17 (2009):
x x x A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed
as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and
completely. Such failure to comply betrays, not only a recalcitrant
streak in character, but also disrespect for the lawful order and
directive of the Court. Furthermore, this contumacious conduct of
refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has
likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain
with, if not contempt of, the system. Ganzan’s transgression is
highlighted even more by the fact that she is an employee of the
Judiciary, who, more than an ordinary citizen, should be aware of
her duty to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court
without delay. x x x

_______________

* EN BANC.

1 Although included in the case title as one of the respondents, it should be

emphasized the Florencio M. Reyes had already been exonerated relative to the
administrative charge of inefficiency in the transmittal of the records of Criminal
Case No. 1144-G. Hence, the present administrative case pertains only to
respondent Rene de Guzman.

512

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

Court Personnel; Dangerous Drugs Act; Drugs Test;

Mandatory but random drug testing of officers and employees of
both public and private offices is valid and constitutional.—Anent
the use of illegal drugs, we have upheld in Social Justice Society
(SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board the validity and constitutionality
of the mandatory but random drug testing of officers and
employees of both public and private offices. As regards public
officers and employees, we specifically held that: Like their
counterparts in the private sector, government officials and
employees also labor under reasonable supervision and
restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on
public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in
the public service. And if RA 9165 passes the norm of
reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it
should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional
demand, are required to be accountable at all times to the
people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and
efficiency.
Same; Same; Same; In A.M. No. 06-1-01-SC dated 17 January
2006, the Court has adopted guidelines for a program to deter the
use of dangerous drugs and institute preventive measures against
drug abuse for the purpose of eliminating the hazards of drug
abuse in the Judiciary, particularly in the first and second level
courts.—Parenthetically, in A.M. No. 06-1-01-SC dated January
17, 2006, the Court has adopted guidelines for a program to deter
the use of dangerous drugs and institute preventive measures
against drug abuse for the purpose of eliminating the hazards of
drug abuse in the Judiciary, particularly in the first and second
level courts. The objectives of the said program are as follows: 1.
To detect the use of dangerous drugs among lower court
employees, impose disciplinary sanctions, and provide
administrative remedies in cases where an employee is found
positive for dangerous drug use. 2. To discourage the use and
abuse of dangerous drugs among first and second level court
employees and enhance awareness of their adverse effects by
information dissemination and periodic random drug testing. 3.
To institute other measures that address the menace of drug
abuse within the personnel of the Judiciary.
Same; Same; As dispensers of justice, all members and
employees of the Judiciary are expected to adhere strictly to the
laws of the land, one of which is Republic Act No. 9165 which
prohibits the use of dangerous drugs.—In the instant
administrative matter, De

513

VOL. 621, JUNE 23, 2010 513

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

Guzman never challenged the authenticity of the Chemistry

Report of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office.
Likewise, the finding that De Guzman was found positive for use
of marijuana and shabu remains unrebutted. De Guzman’s
general denial that he is not a drug user cannot prevail over this
compelling evidence. The foregoing constitutes more than
substantial evidence that De Guzman was indeed found positive
for use of dangerous drugs. In Dadulo v. Court of Appeals, 521
SCRA 357 (2007), we held that “(a)dministrative proceedings are
governed by the ‘substantial evidence rule.’ Otherwise stated, a
finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be
sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence
that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.” This Court is a
temple of justice. Its basic duty and responsibility is the
dispensation of justice. As dispensers of justice, all members and
employees of the Judiciary are expected to adhere strictly to the
laws of the land, one of which is Republic Act No. 9165 which
prohibits the use of dangerous drugs.
Same; Same; The legislative policy as embodied in Republic
Act No. 9165 in deterring dangerous drug use by resort to
sustainable programs of rehabilitation and treatment must be
considered in light of the Supreme Court’s constitutional power of
administrative supervision over courts and court personnel—the
legislative power cannot limit the Court’s power to impose
disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and court
personnel.—Two justices disagree with the majority opinion. They
opine that the Court’s action in this case contravenes an express
public policy, i.e., “imprisonment for drug dealers and pushers,
rehabilitation for their victims.” They also posit that De Guzman’s
failure to properly perform his duties and promptly respond to
Court orders precisely springs from his drug addiction that
requires rehabilitation. Finally, they state that the Court’s real
strength is not in its righteousness but in its willingness to
understand that men are not perfect and that there is a time to
punish and a time to give a chance for contrition and change.
However, the legislative policy as embodied in Republic Act No.
9165 in deterring dangerous drug use by resort to sustainable
programs of rehabilitation and treatment must be considered in
light of this

514

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

Court’s constitutional power of administrative supervision over

courts and court personnel. The legislative power imposing
policies through laws is not unlimited and is subject to the
substantive and constitutional limitations that set parameters
both in the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects
of legislation. As such, it cannot limit the Court’s power to impose
disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and court
personnel. Neither should such policy be used to restrict the
Court’s power to preserve and maintain the Judiciary’s honor,
dignity and integrity and public confidence that can only be
achieved by imposing strict and rigid standards of decency and
propriety governing the conduct of justices, judges and court
employees.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Misconduct.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PER CURIAM:**
This complaint for gross misconduct against Rene de
Guzman (De Guzman), Clerk, Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, is an offshoot of the
complaint filed by Atty. Hugo B. Sansano, Jr. (Atty.
Sansano) relative to the alleged incompetence/inefficiency
of the RTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, in the
transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G2 to
the Court of Appeals.
In our Resolution dated September 17, 2007, we adopted
the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) declaring as closed and terminated
the administrative matter relative to the delay in the
transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G,
and exonerating De Guzman and Florencio M. Reyes
(Reyes), the Officer-in-Charge of the RTC of Guimba,
Nueva Ecija, Branch 31.

_______________

**  Two Justices dissented while two other Justices took no part
pursuant to the Rules on Inhibition. One Justice concurred with his own
separate view.
2 People v. Romeo Manangan.

515

VOL. 621, JUNE 23, 2010 515

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

However, in the same Resolution, we also required De

Guzman to comment on the allegation that he is using
illegal drugs and had been manifesting irrational and
queer behavior while at work. According to Reyes, De
Guzman’s manifestations of absurd behavior prompted
Judge Napoleon R. Sta. Romana (Judge Sta. Romana) to
request the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory to
perform a drug test on De Guzman. As alleged by Reyes:

“x x x Mr. Rene de Guzman, the Docket Clerk, was [in] charge
of the preparation and transmission of the records on appeal x x x.
Nonetheless, x  x  x Judge Sta. Romana would x  x  x often x  x  x
[remind him] about the transmittal of records of the appealed
cases [for more than] a dozen times, even personally confronting
Mr. Rene de Guzman about the matter, x  x  x though
unsuccessfully x x x. Mr. De Guzman would just x x x dismiss the
subject in ridicule and with the empty assurance that the task is
as good as finished and what x x x need[s] to be done [is] simply
retyping of the corrected indices or the like and that he would
submit the same in [no] time at all. This was after a number of
weeks from March 26, 2003 after Mr. De Guzman made the
undersigned sign the transmittal of PP v. Manangan which he
allegedly did not transmit before owing to some minor corrections
in the indexing. All too often, (it seems to have been customary on
his part, for this he would do to other pressing assignment) he
would come to the office the next day, jubilant that the problem
has been solved at last! But to no avail. This attitude seemingly
bordering on the irrational if not to say that a sense of
responsibility is utterly lacking may have given cue for Judge Sta.
Romana to have Mr. De Guzman undergo a drug test x x x.3
That Mr. De Guzman could brush aside even the personal
importuning by the judge is a fete no other of our co-employees
dare emulate. On the contrary, everybody is apprehensive for his
well being and in his behalf. x x x

On May 24, 2004, Judge Sta. Romana requested the

Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office to conduct
a drug test on De Guzman. On May 26, 2004, De Guzman
underwent

_______________

3 Undated letter of Florencio M. Reyes, p. 2.

516

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

a qualitative examination the results of which yielded

positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol metabolites (marijuana)
and Methamphetamine (shabu), both dangerous drugs.
In our Resolution of September 17, 2007, we required De
Guzman to submit his comment on the charge of
misconduct relative to the alleged use of prohibited drugs
within 10 days from notice. Notwithstanding the Court’s
directive, De Guzman failed to file his Comment. Thus, on
January 23, 2008, we directed De Guzman to show cause
why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply
with the September 17, 2007 Resolution. At the same time,
we resolved to require him to submit his comment within
10 days from notice.
De Guzman complied with our directive only on March
12, 2008. In his letter, De Guzman claimed that he failed to
comply with the Court’s directive because he lost his copy
of the September 17, 2007 Resolution.
Treating De Guzman’s letter as his Comment, we
referred the same to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation. The OCA submitted its Report and
Recommendation on July 23, 2008 which reads in part:

“x x x x
Noticeably, respondent de Guzman did not challenge the
authenticity and validity of the chemistry report of the Nueva
Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office which found him
positive for “marijuana” and “shabu.” He did not also promptly
submit another test report or other document to controvert the
drug test report. His plain refutation of the charge and his
willingness to submit himself now to a drug test are token
attempts at candor and assertion of innocence. These perfunctory
attempts cannot prevail over the solitary yet compelling evidence
of misconduct for use of prohibited drugs.
Relative to respondent’s delay in filing his comment to the
charge of misconduct, his claim that he “lost and misplaced (his)
copy of said resolution, and for that (he) almost forgot about it” is
neither a valid reason nor an excuse for the delay in complying
with the

517

VOL. 621, JUNE 23, 2010 517

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

order of the Court. His flippant attitude towards the repeated

orders of the Court to explain his conduct does not merit
consideration and justification for delay.
It is settled that respondent’s “indifference to [the resolutions]
requiring him to comment on the accusation(s) in the complaint
thoroughly and substantially is gross misconduct, and may even
be considered as outright disrespect to the Court.” After all, a
resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and should
be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply
accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character,
but has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to
remain with, if not contempt of the judicial system.
It should be mentioned that this is not the first instance that
respondent is ordered to account for his failure to comply with a
court order. Earlier, he was required to explain to the Court his
failure to promptly submit a copy of the affidavit of retired court
stenographer Jorge Caoile and to show cause why he should not
be administratively dealt with for his failure to comply with a
show cause order.
For failure to overcome the charge of use of prohibited drugs
and to satisfactorily explain his failure to submit promptly his
compliance to the Court’s show cause order, respondent may be
held guilty of two counts of gross misconduct.”

The OCA thus submitted the following recommendations

for consideration of the Court viz.:

1. The instant matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular

administrative case; and
2. Respondent Rene de Guzman be found guilty of gross misconduct
and accordingly be DISMISSED from the service effective
immediately with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave
credits, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned
or controlled agencies, corporations and financial institutions.4

_______________

4 Report and Recommendation dated July 23, 2008, p. 3.

518

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

On August 27, 2008, we required De Guzman to

manifest within 10 days from receipt whether he is willing
to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the
pleadings/records already filed and submitted. As before,
De Guzman simply ignored our directive. Consequently, on
September 28, 2009, we deemed waived the filing of De
Guzman’s manifestation.
Our Ruling
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
We note that De Guzman is adept at ignoring the
Court’s directives. In his letter-explanation in the
administrative matter relative to the delay in the
transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G, he
requested for a period of 10 days or until November 15,
2004 within which to submit the Affidavit of George Caoile
(Caoile), the retired Stenographer, as part of his comment.
However, despite the lapse of five months, De Guzman still
failed to submit Caoile’s affidavit. Subsequently, we
furnished him with a copy of the April 18, 2005 Resolution
wherein we mentioned that we are awaiting his submission
of the affidavit of Caoile which shall be considered as part
of his (De Guzman’s) comment.
Nine months from the time he undertook to submit the
affidavit of Caoile, De Guzman has yet to comply with his
undertaking. Thus, on August 10, 2005, we required De
Guzman to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily
dealt with or held in contempt for such failure.
Unfortunately, De Guzman merely ignored our show
cause order. Consequently, on November 20, 2006, we
imposed upon him a fine of P1,000.00. Finally, on January
24, 2007, or after the lapse of one year and two months, De
Guzman submitted the affidavit of Caoile.
Similarly, we also required De Guzman to file his
comment within 10 days from notice as regards the
allegation that he was using prohibited drugs. However, he
again ignored our directive as contained in the Resolution
of September 17,

519

VOL. 621, JUNE 23, 2010 519

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

2007. Thus, on January 23, 2008, we required him to show

cause why he should not be held in contempt for such
failure. By way of explanation, De Guzman submitted a
letter dated March 12, 2008 wherein he claimed that he
failed to file his comment on the charge of miscondouct
because he allegedly lost his copy of the said September 17,
2007 Resolution.
Finally, on August 27, 2008, we required De Guzman to
manifest whether he is willing to submit the case for
resolution based on the pleadings submitted. As before, he
failed to comply with the same.
As correctly observed by the OCA, De Guzman has
shown his propensity to defy the directives of this Court.5
However, at this juncture, we are no longer wont to
countenance such disrespectful behavior. As we have
categorically declared in Office of the Court Administrator
v. Clerk of Court Fe P. Ganzan, MCTC, Jasaan, Claveria,
Misamis Oriental:6

“x  x  x A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be

construed as a mere request, and should be complied with
promptly and completely. Such failure to comply betrays, not only
a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the
lawful order and directive of the Court. Furthermore, this
contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives
issued by the Court has likewise been considered as an utter lack
of interest to remain with, if not contempt of, the system.
Ganzan’s transgression is highlighted even more by the fact that
she is an employee of the Judiciary, who, more than an ordinary
citizen, should be aware of her duty to obey the orders and
processes of the Supreme Court without delay. x x x”

Anent the use of illegal drugs, we have upheld in Social

Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board7 the
validity and constitutionality of the mandatory but random
drug testing of officers and employees of both public and
private of-

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 2-3.

6 A.M. No. P-05-2046, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 17.
7 G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633, and 161658, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA
410, 430.

520

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

fices. As regards public officers and employees, we

specifically held that:

“Like their counterparts in the private sector, government

officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision
and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws
on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics
in the public service. And if RA 9165 passes the norm of
reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it
should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional
demand, are required to be accountable at all times to the
people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and
efficiency.”8

Parenthetically, in A.M. No. 06-1-01-SC9 dated January

17, 2006, the Court has adopted guidelines for a program to
deter the use of dangerous drugs and institute preventive
measures against drug abuse for the purpose of eliminating
the hazards of drug abuse in the Judiciary, particularly in
the first and second level courts. The objectives of the said
program are as follows:

1. To detect the use of dangerous drugs among lower court

employees, impose disciplinary sanctions, and provide
administrative remedies in cases where an employee is found
positive for dangerous drug use.
2. To discourage the use and abuse of dangerous drugs among first
and second level court employees and enhance awareness of their
adverse effects by information dissemination and periodic random
drug testing.
3. To institute other measures that address the menace of drug
abuse within the personnel of the Judiciary.

In the instant administrative matter, De Guzman never

challenged the authenticity of the Chemistry Report of the

_______________

8 Id., at p. 435. Emphasis supplied.

9 Re: Draft Administrative Circular on the Guidelines for the
Implementation of the Drug Prevention Program for the First and Second
Level Courts.

521

VOL. 621, JUNE 23, 2010 521

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. Likewise,

the finding that De Guzman was found positive for use of
marijuana and shabu remains unrebutted. De Guzman’s
general denial that he is not a drug user cannot prevail
over this compelling evidence.
The foregoing constitutes more than substantial
evidence that De Guzman was indeed found positive for use
of dangerous drugs. In Dadulo v. Court of Appeals,10 we
held that “(a)dministrative proceedings are governed by the
‘substantial evidence rule.’ Otherwise stated, a finding of
guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained
for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that
the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of
evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably
opine otherwise.”11
This Court is a temple of justice. Its basic duty and
responsibility is the dispensation of justice. As dispensers
of justice, all members and employees of the Judiciary are
expected to adhere strictly to the laws of the land, one of
which is Republic Act No. 916512 which prohibits the use of
dangerous drugs.13

_______________

10 G.R. No. 175451, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 357.

11 Id., at p. 362.
12 The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
13 Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides:
SEC. 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.—A person apprehended or
arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6)
months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject
to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any
dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two
hundred thousand pesos

522

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

The Court has adhered to the policy of safeguarding the

welfare, efficiency, and well-being not only of all the court
personnel, but also that of the general public whom it
serves. The Court will not allow its front-line
representatives, like De Guzman, to put at risk the
integrity of the whole judiciary. As we held in Baron v.
Anacan,14 “(t)he image of a court of justice is mirrored in
the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who
work thereat. Thus, the conduct of a person serving the
judiciary must, at all times, be characterized by propriety
and decorum and above all else, be above suspicion so as to
earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary.
The Court would never countenance any conduct, act or
omission on the part of all those in the administration of
justice, which will violate the norm of public accountability
and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the
people in the judiciary.”
Article XI of the Constitution mandates that:

“SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers

and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

De Guzman’s use of prohibited drugs has greatly

affected his efficiency in the performance of his functions.
De Guzman did not refute the observation of his superior,
Judge Sta. Romana, that as a criminal docket court clerk,
he (De Guzman) was totally inept and incompetent. Hence,
to get across his displeasure and dissatisfaction with his
job performance,

_______________

(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable

where a person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act,
in which case, the provisions stated therein shall apply.
14 A.M. No. P-04-1816, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 313, 315.

523

VOL. 621, JUNE 23, 2010 523

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

Judge Sta. Romana gave De Guzman an unsatisfactory

rating.
Moreover, De Guzman’s efficiency as a custodian of
court records is also totally wanting. As early as May 12,
2004, Judge Sta. Romana issued a Memorandum addressed
to De Guzman relative to the “sleeping cases” inside the
latter’s drawer. It would appear that several cases have not
been proceeded upon because De Guzman hid the records of
the same inside his drawer. The text of the said
Memorandum reads:

“An examination of the records found in your drawer reveal that the
following cases have not moved because you have not brought the same
to the attention of the Presiding Judge, to wit:
1. Crim. Case No. 1849-C, PP v. Ruben Villanueva—Order of
transmittal to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva
Ecija dated August 6, 2003 to resolve the Motion for
Reconsideration.
Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor dated September 23, 2003
denying the Motion for Reconsideration and transmitting the
records to the RTC, Br. 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija received by this
court on September 24, 2003;
2. Crim. Case No. 1993-G, PP vs. JOJO SUPNET—Information
dated October 14, 2002 received by this Court on November 18,
2002;
3. Crim. Case No. 2013-G, PP vs. Brgy. Capt. BAYANI CAMIS—
Information dated September 23, 2002 received by this court on
January 24, 2003;
4. Crim. Case No. 2007-G, PP vs. Armando Marcos—Information
dated June 23, 2002; Records received on January 2, 2003.
The Presiding Judge caused the issuance of finding of probable
causes and the corresponding Warrants of Arrest. You are hereby
ordered to assist the OIC/Clerk of Court in sending forthwith the
Warrants of Arrest to the proper agencies for implementation.

524

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

In the same vein, Reyes also put forth the absurd

behavioral manifestations of De Guzman. According to
Reyes, Judge Sta. Romana would always remind De
Guzman to prepare and transmit the complete records of
the appealed cases. However, De Guzman would only make
empty assurances to perform his task. Notwithstanding the
reminders of his superiors, De Guzman would still fail to
transmit the records. Instead, he would report the next day
and jubilantly declare that the problem has been solved at
last.
 In fine, we agree with the OCA that by his repeated and
contumacious conduct of disrespecting the Court’s
directives, De Guzman is guilty of gross misconduct and
has already forfeited his privilege of being an employee of
the Court. Likewise, we can no longer countenance his
manifestations of queer behavior, bordering on absurd,
irrational and irresponsible, because it has greatly affected
his job performance and efficiency. By using prohibited
drugs, and being a front-line representative of the
Judiciary, De Guzman has exposed to risk the very
institution which he serves. It is only by weeding out the
likes of De Guzman from the ranks that we would be able
to preserve the integrity of this institution.
Two justices disagree with the majority opinion. They
opine that the Court’s action in this case contravenes an
express public policy, i.e., “imprisonment for drug dealers
and pushers, rehabilitation for their victims.” They also
posit that De Guzman’s failure to properly perform his
duties and promptly respond to Court orders precisely
springs from his drug addiction that requires
rehabilitation. Finally, they state that the Court’s real
strength is not in its righteousness but in its willingness to
understand that men are not perfect and that there is a
time to punish and a time to give a chance for contrition
and change.
However, the legislative policy as embodied in Republic
Act No. 9165 in deterring dangerous drug use by resort to
sustainable programs of rehabilitation and treatment must
be considered in light of this Court’s constitutional power of

525

VOL. 621, JUNE 23, 2010 525

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Reyes

administrative supervision over courts and court personnel.

The legislative power imposing policies through laws is not
unlimited and is subject to the substantive and
constitutional limitations that set parameters both in the
exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of
legislation.15 As such, it cannot limit the Court’s power to
impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges
and court personnel. Neither should such policy be used to
restrict the Court’s power to preserve and maintain the
 Judiciary’s honor, dignity and integrity and public
confidence that can only be achieved by imposing strict and
rigid standards of decency and propriety governing the
conduct of justices, judges and court employees.
Likewise, we cannot subscribe to the idea that De
Guzman’s irrational behavior stems solely from his being a
drug user. Such queer behavior can be attributed to several
factors. However, it cannot by any measure be categorically
stated at this point that it can be attributed solely to his
being a drug user.
Finally, it must be emphasized at this juncture that De
Guzman’s dismissal is not grounded only on his being a
drug user. His outright dismissal from the service is
likewise anchored on his contumacious and repeated acts of
not heeding the directives of this Court. As we have already
stated, such attitude betrays not only a recalcitrant streak
of character, but also disrespect for the lawful orders and
directives of the Court.
ACCORDINGLY, Rene de Guzman, Clerk, Regional
Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, is hereby
DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.

_______________

15 Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, supra note 7 at p.

423.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.