Court Personnel Smoking or Vaping in Court Premises: A Less Serious Offense

The Supreme Court recently reminded all judiciary personnel that they are held to a higher standard of conduct, ruling that smoking or vaping within court premises—outside designated areas—constitutes a less serious administrative offense. The case of Capule v. Felipe (A.M. No. P-26-316, March 3, 2026) clarifies that the prohibition applies equally to traditional cigarettes and electronic vaping devices, and that a fine, not merely a warning, is the appropriate penalty.

The Complaint Against a Court Utility Worker

Joseph Dominic M. Capule filed an administrative complaint against Conrado T. Felipe, a Utility Worker II at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan. Capule alleged three grounds: (1) Felipe smoked within court premises, based on a photo posted on social media; (2) Felipe spread rumors that Capule had a "bad record in court and is troublesome"; and (3) Felipe disclosed notarized documents without proper authorization.

Felipe denied the accusations. He admitted using a vape device but claimed he did not use it in front of clients, that the photo was taken years ago, and that it was irrelevant to his duties. He also denied any prior association with Capule that would explain the alleged rumors.

The Issue: Did the Court Personnel Commit an Administrative Offense?

The sole issue was whether Felipe should be held administratively liable for simple misconduct, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and vulgar and unbecoming conduct.

The Ruling: Smoking or Vaping in Court Premises Is a Less Serious Charge

The Court adopted the factual findings of the Judicial Integrity Office, which recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit on the rumor and document-disclosure allegations. Capule failed to present substantial evidence—"that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion"—to support these claims.

However, the Court disagreed with the recommendation to impose only a stern warning for the smoking allegation. The photo clearly showed Felipe smoking near the archives section, and Felipe did not deny the act itself.

The prohibition covers both smoking and vaping. The Court cited two legal bases:

• Executive Order No. 26 (2017), as amended by Executive Order No. 106 (2020), which extended the ban to cover electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems, or vapes, in public places.
• Republic Act No. 11900 (Vaporized Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Products Regulation Act), which prohibits the use of vape products in all indoor public places except in designated vaping areas. The exact text of the provision is not available in the ASG law library, but the statute's coverage of government office premises is reflected in the Court's ruling.

The Court emphasized that there is "no reason to treat vaping differently from smoking," as both laws prohibit both acts in public places, including court premises.

The penalty. The Court found Felipe guilty of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars under Rule 140, Section 15(e) of the Rules of Court. This is a less serious charge, penalized by suspension of one to six months or a fine of more than PHP 35,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 100,000.00. The Court imposed a fine of PHP 36,000.00, payable within three months or deductible from benefits.

The Court declined to apply the newer 2025 Code of Conduct for Court Officials and Personnel retroactively because its penalties are higher than those under Rule 140, and penal laws apply retroactively only when favorable to the accused.

Why the Court Took a Firm Stance

The Court underscored the serious risks of smoking and vaping within court premises: potential damage to court records and equipment in case of fire, health risks to employees and visitors from secondhand smoke and aerosol exposure, and the negative impact on the Judiciary's reputation. Court personnel, as public servants, must observe strict compliance with these prohibitions.

Practical Takeaways

• Smoking and vaping are treated the same under Philippine law for purposes of the ban in public places, including court premises and government offices.
• Court personnel face real penalties, not just warnings, for violating smoking and vaping bans—a fine of PHP 36,000.00 was imposed here.
• Complaints must be supported by substantial evidence; bare allegations without proof will be dismissed.
• Designated smoking or vaping areas are the only exception; using these products anywhere else within court premises is prohibited.
• Newer administrative rules may not apply retroactively if they impose heavier penalties than the rules in effect at the time of the offense.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.