In a six-page decision, the Supreme Court upheld an Office of the Bar Confidante (OBC) report finding Melchor Tiongson guilty of simple misconduct, as well as of violating the “Instructions to Head Watchers” when he brought his camera inside the Bar exam room at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila in November 2011.
Tiongson brought his digital camera inside Room 314 of St. Martin De Porres Building in UST during the second Sunday of the Bar exams.
According to Tiongson’s three fellow watchers, while they were counting the pages of the questionnaires after the morning examination, Tiongson took pictures of the Civil Law questionnaire using his digital camera.
“Tiongson allegedly repeated the same act and took pictures of the Mercantile Law questionnaire after the afternoon examination,” said the high court in recounting the facts of the administrative case.
During investigation of the OBC, Tiongson admitted bringing in his digital camera. He said he refused to surrender his camera to the badge counter personnel for fear that it will not be handled and kept properly.
Following the incident, Tiongson was no longer allowed to serve as head watcher during the remaining Sundays of the examination that year. The OBC also indefinitely suspended him from becoming a head watcher for gross misconduct and dishonesty.
In its own ruling, the SC affirmed the OBC’s findings and recommendations but modified the penalty handed down to Tiongson. Instead of grave misconduct and honesty, the high court only found Tiongson guilty of simple misconduct.
The SC said a person is guilty of grave misconduct if there was a “clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule is present.” It said dishonesty refers to a person’s disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud.
“The elements of grave misconduct were not proven with substantial evidence, and Tiongson admitted his infraction before the OBC,” the SC said.
Instead of indefinite suspension, the high court imposed a permanent disqualification penalty on Tiongson. He was also suspended for one month and one day “with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.”
“As a CA employee, Tiongson disregarded his duty to uphold the strict standards required of every employee, that is, to be an example of integrity, uprightness and obedience to the judiciary,” said the SC in its ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
The high court said it decided to impose on Tiongson the minimum penalty for simple misconduct in consideration of his 14 years of service in the CA and given that it was his first time to commit an infraction in the appeals court. — KBK, GMA News
