JUDGE ABRAHAM D. CAÑA vs. ROBERTO B.

GEBUSION
A.M. No. P-98-1284; March 30, 2000
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
Prior to 1994, respondent Sheriff often reported to the office with the smell of liquor in his breath
and several times drunk and would easily pick trouble with anybody. On November 8, 1995, he filed an
application for indefinite leave of absence in a half-size yellow pad, which was disapproved by the Branch
Clerk of Court. Nonetheless, he went on leave for 5 months and again was absent without proper leave.
During the election gun ban period, respondent was arrested while brandishing an unlicensed revolver
threatening to kill petitioner for filing such charges. Complainant prays that respondent be place under
preventive suspension considering his violent nature and the grave danger he posed to the safety of other
employees of the court most of whom were women. Respondent will often report to his office literally
drunk. Respondent will also leave the office premises without permission and during office hours to drink
liquor. The complaint was withdrawn for the time being by complainant upon respondent's assurance that
he will rehabilitate himself and to allow him to complete the 20-year service to qualify him to retire.
Nevertheless, respondent did not reform but reverted to his habits. Habitual drunkenness does not
necessarily warrant dismissal from the service except where the employee has become notoriously
undesirable, has rendered him physically and mentally incapacitated to continue his present position, and
caused strained relationship with his co-employees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Gerbusion was illegally dismissed from work.

LAW:
Art. 282. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following
causes: (a) serious misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer
or representative in connection with his work.

CASE HISTORY:
The investigating judge finds respondent guilty of all charges of habitual drunkenness against him except
those of grave threats and illegal possession of firearms.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that respondent be dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits.
An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

RULING:
Office of the Court Administrator, although concurring in the factual findings of the Investigating
Judge, recommends that respondent be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-
owned and controlled corporations. The recommendation of the Court Administrator is well taken. All
these circumstances lead us to conclude that because respondent has a personal problem, he cannot
discharge his duties with competence, efficiency, and courtesy. While habitual drunkenness does not
necessarily warrant dismissal from the service, we find that respondent has become notoriously
undesirable and that his drinking problem has turned into a vicious habit which renders him physically and
mentally incapacitated to continue in his present position as Sheriff IV. Not only has his habit hindered the
proper performance of his duties, it has also caused a strain in his relationship with his co-employees. His
habits have affected his work and rendered him unfit for public service. Respondent has also shown no
respect for reasonable office rules. He went on AWOL from the office for five months, he was absent
without proper leave. Absence without leave for a prolonged period of time constitutes conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of public service and justifies the dismissal of an employee and the forfeiture
of benefits with prejudice to re-employment in the government. We have, therefore, no other recourse
but to remove respondent from his present position as Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court with forfeiture
of benefits and with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or office of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.

OPINION:
One of the grounds provided by law where an employer may validly dismiss an employee is when
employees commits an act of serious misconduct. Mere intoxication is not misconduct nor negligence,
however, when such intoxication becomes habitual and disruptive, said drunkenness can be deemed as
serious misconduct. Habitual drunkenness does not necessarily warrant dismissal from the service except
where the employee has become notoriously undesirable, has rendered him physically and mentally
incapacitated as to continue his present position, and caused strained relationship with his co-employees.
In this case, respondent was not only drunk but he also disobeys the rules imposed upon government
employees and disobeys the orders of his employer. Respondent does not only fail to perform his duties
but also disrupts his co-employees and the working place where innocent people are present. Such act
cannot be tolerated especially coming from an officer of the court. Being a Sheriff, he should set example
of obedience to laws and not lawless conduct. Self-restraint and civility are expected from civil service
employees.