even her co-employees, Wilgeer T. Andres and Ernesto V. Fontanilla, were also

Ruling

Accordingly, in a Resolution dated October 4, 2000, [4] this Court required Executive Judge Rosales to conduct the investigation of the case. Thereafter, on August 9, 2001, Executive Judge Rosales submitted his Investigation, Report and Recommendation, wherein he recommended the dismissal of the respondent. Regarding the charge of abuse of authority and grave misconduct, Executive Judge Rosales made the following findings: [5] It is thus crystal clear that in the morning of December 21, 1999 during office hours, the respondent not only allowed but also himself joined a drinking session with his male co-employees of the court inside the courtroom which caused his inebriation in the morning and afternoon of that date. As the designated OIC of the Court, he should have prohibited the holding of such drinking session within the courtroom and he should have refrained from himself imbibing the hard drink as it was still office hours to provide good example to the other employees under him. It will be noted that, according to the respondent himself, they (he and the employees) declared x x x a Christmas party. It was a holiday on our part (TSN, July 2 , 2001, p. 6) despite the fact that by his own admission, it was a working day. The pretext that it was an extended Christmas Celebration of all courts (TSN June 25, 2001, p. 10) does not seem to have any basis at all. Firstly, only the male employees participated. Secondly, the evidence discloses that the party only consisted of drinking one bottle of Fundador and no food was served, contrary to the claim of the respondent that they prepared some food for the lady employees. Thirdly, even the respondent went somewhere else at 11:00 A.M. and only returned at around 12:45 P.M. No one testified that they took lunch in the courtroom at noontime. It is thus apparent that the group of male employees led by the respondent took it upon themselves to unilaterally declare a holiday without any sanction of law or any authority from any court official. This alone and the drunkenness of the respondent already are sufficient bases for disciplinary action against the respondent. The charge that while very drunk he challenged the complainant, Wilgeer Andres and Ernesto Fontanilla his subordinates, is supported by clear and convincing evidence. As to the charge of oppression, Executive Judge Rosales found that the respondents withholding of the salary checks and bonus did not have a solid basis. There was no authorization [by] the presiding judge or the respondent as OIC [officer in charge] of the Court to direct the withholding of the complainants checks emanating from the Supreme Court. Moreover, it would appear that the complainants side was not first heard before her salary was cut off, thus, depriving her of her right to her salary without due process. [6] Executive Judge Rosales also found the respondent guilty of dishonesty. The latters act of collecting reimbursement for trips made with inadequate