558 Phil. 18
GARCIA, J.:
Judge Tienzo in her memorandum to respondent copy furnished this Office, stated the following:On the basis of available records, the OCA recommended that the respondent be adjudged guilty of illegal gambling during office hours and he be meted the penalty of dismissal, but without forfeiture of his retirement benefits and leave credits. Cited to justify the imposition of the recommended penalty is Section 52 (c) (5), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, which prescribes the penalty of dismissal upon a public officer for engaging in gambling, where said public officer commits the same offense a third time. The said Rule states:
She had caught respondent [Florendo] playing a game of chance "tong-it" in a hut at the back of the Municipal Building of Lupao despite warning on August 26, 2003.
For repeating the same act the third time she directed respondent to report in the office at 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. Respondent was also warned to refrain from revealing confidential matters in the office by giving information as to the issuance of a warrant of arrest to those accused of a crime and for relaying fake information to people within the jurisdiction of the Court.
There were three (3) directives issued by this Office to respondent on the following dates, to wit:
- 1st Indorsement dated October 16, 2003 to file Comment within ten (10) days from receipt;
- First (1st) Tracer dated March 11, 2004 for Comment within five (5) days from receipt; and
- Second (2nd) Indorsement dated July 2, 2004 for Comment and to explain failure to comply with the two (2) previous directives.
The registry return receipts for the above three (3) directives indicate that respondent received them, but respondent has never submitted his comment.[3]
C. The following are Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:
5. Gambling prohibited by lawWhile it agrees with the OCA's recommendation as to the respondent's guilt, the Court excepts with respect to the imposable penalty. As it were, the Civil Service Uniform Rules prescribes the penalty of dismissal for gambling for the third offense. When the law speaks of "third offense," the reference is to a third final judgment of guilt after the erring officer has been duly charged with gambling. As it were, respondent was thrice warned to refrain from playing "tong-its" during office hours. The records reveal that, for the first two gambling infractions he appeared to have committed, respondent was not charged formally. What is clear is that he was merely warned. Judge Tienzo appeared to be open to the prospect of reform, and the good judge desisted from taking official action against the respondent, as her Office Memorandum to the respondent discloses.[4] Respondent was formally charged only after the occurrence of the third gambling incident. As such, the penalty of dismissal prescribed under Section 52 (c) (5), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases cannot strictly apply. For all intents and purposes, this case may be considered as respondent's first gambling offense.
1st Offense - Reprimand;
2nd Offense - Suspension for 1-30 days;
3rd Offense - Dismissal.
A common gambler is a common nuisance, insensible to honor, deaf to pity, bent upon plunder, he is human cormorant, more destructible than the bird of prey itself.[7]The Court, to be sure, frowns on gambling, as the vice may lead to the more nefarious consequence already all too well-known as graft. The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women at its helm. Hence, it becomes the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[8]