ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236   July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236. July 11, 1997.]

    CLERK II-MADONNA MACALUA, Complainant, v. COURT AIDE-DOMINGO TIU, JR., Respondent.

    Maximo Martinez and Partners for complainant.

    SYNOPSIS


    Madonna Macalua, a Clerk II in Branch 44, RTC, Dumaguete City, filed an administrative complaint for "grave misconduct in office" against respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr., a Court Aide in the same Branch. It is the allegation in the complaint that one Mrs. Adela dela Peña sought the withdrawal of the bail bond posted for her son who was an accused in a criminal case pending in Branch 44. Macalua, who is in charge of the records of criminal cases, told Mrs. dela Peña that she could not release the bail bond of her son because of an order from the judge not to release the bond as there was a need to file another motion to withdraw with a more recent date. Mrs. dela Peña was asked to come back the next day. Mrs. dela Peña, however, was adamant in getting the bail bond that very day "as she comes from a far place and that she is leaving for Manila the next day."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Respondent Tiu, Jr., approached Macalua and told her to give what Mrs. dela Peña wanted, saying, "Don, you release that bail because this woman comes from a far place. If you were in her shoes it would not be nice if her papers will not be released." Respondent insisted that the bail bond be released. While Macalua was explaining to Mrs. dela Peba why she could not release the bail bond, respondent got the records of the case which were on Macalua’s table, placed them in another table and went over the records looking for the bail bond, muttering, Where is that bail bond? This Ricafort is bull shit. He should have been here. Ricafort is always absent." After Mrs. dela Peña left, an altercation ensued between Macalua and respondent Tiu, Jr.

    As a court aide, respondent has no authority to release court records nor can he compel complainant to release the same. This is specially true since the latter being the clerk and having access to said records, refuses to do that which she knows she is legally barred from doing for lack of authority. Helping people is a good trait rarely found among public officials who are true to their duties and plainly motivated by pure public service. It is in no way an ignoble act, yet the manner it was carried out by respondent cannot be countenanced. Such contrary to the precept of "courtesy in the civil service."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Court finds respondent Tiu, Jr., guilty of simple misconduct and affirms the recommendation that he be suspended from office for one month and one day without pay effective upon receipt hereof.


    SYLLABUS


    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER COURT PERSONNEL; UTILITY WORKER OR COURT AIDE; DISCOURTEOUS AND IMPOLITE INTERCESSION FOR RELEASE OF BAIL BOND IN FAVOR OF TOWNMATE CONSTITUTES SIMPLE MISCONDUCT. — As a court aide or utility worker, respondent has no authority to release court records nor can he compel complainant to release the same. This is specially true since the latter being the clerk and having access to said records, refuses to do that which she knows she is legally barred from doing for lack of authority. Respondent moved by pity and sympathy, tried to help a woman townmate secure official papers and even promised to deliver the papers to her upon knowing that she hails from a place 117 kms. away from Dumaguete City. Helping people is a good trait rarely found among public officials who are true to their duties and plainly motivated by pure public service. It is in no way an ignoble act yet the manner it was carried out by respondent cannot be countenanced. Such manner is reprehensible and shows lack of courtesy contrary to the precept of "courtesy in the civil service." Pity for the needing public is no excuse for discourtesy to a fellow employee. Such misconduct is undeserving of the Court’s sympathy nor would it serve as justification for a mitigated liability. Pity cannot be the source of authority for a prohibited act nor can it allow misconduct in office. The exigencies of government service cannot and should never be subordinate to purely human equations. Moreover, quarreling with a co-employee specially when done before the public or within the premises and during office hours is prejudicial to vice. As an employee of the judiciary, respondent is expected to accord respect for the person and rights of others at all times, and that his every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity." Government service is people oriented where high strung and belligerent behavior cannot be allowed. So that no matter how commendable respondent’s motives may be, as a public officer courtesy should be his policy. He is expected to do no more than what duty demands and no less than what privilege permits. Though he may be of great help to specific individuals, but when that help frustrates and betrays the public’s trust in the system it cannot and should not remain unchecked. The interests of the individual must give way to the accommodation of the public — Privatum incommodum publico bono pensatur. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30 s. of 1989 enumerates the corresponding penalties for administrative cases pursuant to the Code of Ethical Standards (Republic Act 6713). Simple misconduct, classified as a less grave offense, carries a penalty of suspension for one (1) month suspension and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first violation. The first penalty recommended to be imposed on respondent is within that range. ACCORDINGLY, the court finds respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr. guilty of simple misconduct and forthwith AFFIRMS the recommendation that he be suspended from office for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay effective upon receipt hereof. He is also WARNED that a repetition of such or similar acts would be dealt with severely in the future.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    FRANCISCO, J.:


    Complainant Madonna Macalua, Clerk II of Regional Trial Court, Branch 44 in Dumaguete City, filed before Judge Alvin L. Tan of the same Branch, an administrative complaint for "grave misconduct in office" against respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr., a Court Aide therein. After the parties submitted affidavits, Judge Tan transmitted the records of the case to the Executive Judge 1 with the recommendation that the case be settled amicably and to swap respondent with other court personnel. The case was referred to the Vice-Executive Judge 2 who, however, inhibited himself on the ground that his wife is related to complainant’s counsel. 3 Thereafter, the case passed a series of re-raffling 4 beginning with Judge Saturnino Ll. Villegas of Branch 36, then to Judges Eleuterio E. Chiu of Branch 32, Alfonso P. Briones of Branch 38, Benigno C. Villarente, Jr. of Branch 41 and Ibarra B. Jaculbe, Jr. of Branch 42 all of whom, except Judge Villarente, inhibited from the case on several grounds. 5 Finally, it was re-raffled to Judge Temistocles Diez of Branch 37 who rendered his report on the case and recommended that respondent be found guilty of "simple, misconduct and gross discourtesy" and be suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day. 6

    Complainant’s grievance arose from the following undisputed facts appearing in the Report of the investigating Judge (Diez):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "On February 23, 1994, at about 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon, one Mrs. Adela dela Peña went to the office of the Clerk of Court of Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental to follow up on the withdrawal of the bail bond posted for his son, Eric dela Peña, who is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 8232 pending before Branch 44. Herein complainant Madonna Macalua, who is in charge of the records of criminal cases informed Mrs. Dela Peña that she cannot release the bail bond of his son because there is a standing order from the Judge not to release the same as there is a need to have a new motion filed as the motion to withdraw was directed to Branch 45 in Bais City and was filed long before the Judge had assumed office. The order to release the bail was not yet signed because there is a need to file another motion with a recent date. Madonna Macalua told Mrs. Dela Peña to come back the next day and talk with Attorney Ricafort, explaining that she is only a clerk. Mrs. Dela Peña was adamant in getting the bail bond whether there was an order or not and said that she cannot wait as she comes from a far place and that she is leaving for Manila the next day. Madonna Macalua was equally resolute in refusing to release the bail bond without an order from the Judge. Respondent Domingo T. Tiu, Jr., the court aide of Branch 44 who was in the courtroom adjacent to the place where Madonna Macalua and Mrs. Dela Peña were conversing, all of a sudden went to Madonna Macalua and told her to release the paper saying, "Don, you release that bail bond because this woman comes from a far place. If you were in her shoes it would not be nice if her papers will not be release." Madonna explained that the judge would not allow the release because the motion had to be changed, and that she is not authorized to release it unless there is a court order. Respondent insisted the bail bond be release. While Madonna was explaining to Mrs. dela Peña why she cannot release the bail bond, respondent got the record (of criminal case No. 8323) which was in front of Madonna in her table and placed it on the table of Paulina Valencia, Court stenographer and went over the pages looking for the bail bond, muttering, "Where is that bail bond? Where is that bail bond. This Ricafort is bull shit. He should have been here. Ricafort is always absent." After Mrs. dela Peña left with the promise of respondent that he will personally bring the papers (bail bond) to Guihulngan, a quarrel ensued between Madonna Macalua and the respondent with both raising their voices and saying a lot things." 7 (Emphasis supplied).

    The Report was referred for evaluation to the Court Administrator who adopted the findings of the investigating judge and recommended that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr. be found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT in the course of official duties and meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day." 8

    The Court is confronted with a scenario whereby an unauthorized utility worker, moved only by sympathy and pity for a certain person who wants to secure a copy of a court document, interceded impolitely with the clerk for the release of the document. In the absence of any ill-motive, would the act of intercession by the utility worker be considered as grave misconduct in office?

    Respondent’s administrative liability stems from the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 9 specifically the provisions on the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which covers him as court personnel 10 Section 46(b) of Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of said Code includes misconduct and discourtesy in the course of official duties among the grounds for disciplinary action.

    As a court aide or utility worker, respondent has no authority to release court records nor can he compel complainant to release the same. This is specially true since the latter being the clerk and having access to said records, refuses to do that which she knows she is legally barred from doing for lack of authority. Respondent moved by pity and sympathy, tried to help a woman townmate secure official papers and even promised to deliver the papers to her upon knowing that she hails from a place 117 kms. away from Dumaguete City. Helping people is a good trait rarely found among public officials who are true to their duties and plainly motivated by pure public service. It is in no way an ignoble act yet the manner it was carried out by respondent cannot be countenanced. Such manner is reprehensible and shows a lack of courtesy contrary to the precept of "courtesy in the civil service." 11 The Court had consistently emphasized that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . the conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an agency involved in the administration of justice from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct must at all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary." 12 (Emphasis supplied).

    Pity for the needing public is no excuse for discourtesy to a fellow employee. Such misconduct is undeserving of the Court’s sympathy nor would it serve as justification for a mitigated liability. Pity cannot be the source of authority for a prohibited act nor can it allow misconduct in office. The exigencies of government service cannot and should never be subordinated to purely human equations. 13 Moreover, quarreling with a co-employee specially when done before the public or within the premises and during office hours is prejudicial to public service. As an employee of the judiciary, respondent is "expected to accord respect for the person and rights of others at all times, and that his every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity." 14 Government service is people oriented where high strung and belligerent behavior cannot be allowed. 15 So that no matter how commendable respondent’s motives may be, as a public officer courtesy should be his policy. He is expected to do no more than what duty demands and no less than what privilege permits. Though he may be of great help to specific individuals, but when that help frustrates and betrays the public’s trust in the system it cannot and should not remain unchecked. The interests of the individual must give way to the accommodation of the public — Privatum incommodum publico bono pensatur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The Court is aware that this complaint would not have occurred had it not been for the absence of the official with whom Mrs. dela Peña could have addressed her needs. The unavailability in office of the officer in charge of what the public wants or with whom they previously transacted business is a sad truth so common in public agencies such that it interrupts the smooth flow of government function and renders public service inutile. That sad truth not only foments untold hardship and hazard to the public but likewise becomes the root cause that triggers conflicts, like the one at bench, not only between the public and their servants but also among the public officers themselves. Instead of promoting harmony, the atmosphere of good relationship in the office is impaired.

    Such officials are not the kind of civil servants contemplated by our Constitution nor desired by the Filipino community. The difficulties and troubles not to say the delay and inconvenience they cause to the public who is left with no option but to persevere and endure a stamina to impatiently wait for that lazy, slothful, feeble, indifferent and indolent public officer to perform his function efficiently. Thus, the public is left at the mercy of public personnel with insatiable desire for compensation but unwilling to minister to the former’s needs to whom they are bound to serve with utmost responsibility, unqualified respect, promptness, active dedication to duty and with moral accountability.

    CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30 s. of 1989 enumerates the corresponding penalties for administrative cases pursuant to the Code of Ethical Standards (Republic Act 6713). Simple misconduct, classified as a less grave offense, carries a penalty of suspension for one (1) month day and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first violation. The penalty recommended to be imposed on respondent is within that range.

    ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr. guilty of simple misconduct and forthwith AFFIRMS the recommendation that he be suspended from office for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay effective upon receipt hereof. He is also WARNED that a repetition of such or similar acts would be dealt with severely in the future.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Judge Pacifico S. Bulado.

    2. Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr.

    3. In his letter to the Executive Judge, Judge Bandal said that his wife’s nephew is partner in the law firm that represented complainant, (Manifestation and Motion of Atty. Cynthia M. Sulit, Rollo, pp. 27-28).

    4. From the inhibition of the Vice-executive Judge, the case was ordered re-raffled by the Deputy Court Administrator.

    5. Judge Villegas inhibited himself from the case, claiming that respondent was the former court aide of former RTC Judge Jose M. Estacion, Jr. who filed an administrative case against the former (Villegas). Judge Chiu voluntarily inhibited himself allegedly out of delicadeza since complainant is the daughter of a lawyer who his is "neighbor and personal friend." Judge Briones inhibited himself claiming that complainant’s counsel (a certain Atty. Paras) was his former Junior Law Partner, that respondent was a former aide of Judge Estacion who was allegedly a political enemy of Congressman Paras who recommended Judge Briones to the judiciary, and that said Congressman is the brother-in-law of Atty. Paras. Judge Villarente was transferred from Dumaguete City to Laguna. Judge Jaculbe, inhibited himself on the ground that complainant was his former law student. (Report and Recommendation of Judge Diez, pp. 2-3).

    6. Rollo, pp. 214-217.

    7. RTC Judge Diez’s Report and Recommendation, p. 3; Recommendation Report of the Deputy Court Administrator, pp. 1-2.

    8. Ibid., p. 3.

    9. Executive Order 292, s. of 1987.

    10. Martinez v. Muñoz, 249 SCRA 14 (1995).

    11. Article IX-B, Section 3, 1987 Constitution.

    12. Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 96-1-SDC(P), February 24, 1997 citing Apaga v. Ponce, 245 SCRA 233 (1995); Juntilla v. Calleja, P-96-1225 (formerly OCA IPI No. 95-56-P), September 23, 1996; Policarpio v. Fortus, 248 SCRA 272 (1995); Callejo, Jr. Garcia, 206 SCRA 491.

    13. Office of the Court Administrator v. Grecia, 246 SCRA 139 (1995).

    14. Ibid.

    15. De Luna v. Rivera, 250 SCRA 1 (1995).

    Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236   July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED