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
 

   
May-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 95796-97 May 2, 1997 - ANTONIO NIEVA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997 - WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, ET AL. v. EDGARDO ANGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94130-32 May 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ISRAEL

  • G.R. No. 105804 May 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO IGDANES

  • G.R. No. 106316 May 5, 1997 - FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANS., CO., INC. v. MA. NIEVES CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108222 May 5, 1997 - HENRY L. SIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111809 May 5, 1997 - MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC. v. MA. NIEVES CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112923 May 5, 1997 - TRENDLINE EMPLOYEES ASSN.-SPFL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116896 May 5, 1997 - PNCC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118131-32 May 5, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO RABUTIN

  • G.R. No. 121490 May 5, 1997 - NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA SONY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121863 May 5, 1997 - UP, ET AL. v. ELPIDIO M. CATUNGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94705 May 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO RONCAL

  • G.R. No. 100468 May 6, 1997 - LAUREANO INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106831 May 6, 1997 - PEPSI-COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHIL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108869 May 6, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SILERIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118357 May 6, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120549 May 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUITO UNARCE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1210 May 7, 1997 - RONA S. QUIROZ v. CRISTETA D. ORFILA

  • G.R. No. 111890 May 7, 1997 - CKH INDUSTRIAL AND DEV. CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112986 May 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO O. BUTRON

  • G.R. No. 113721 May 7, 1997 - ARC-MEN FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118080 May 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO DATUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118504 May 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL SOL

  • Adm. Case No. 4539 May 14, 1997 - ROMANA R. MALIGSA v. ARSENIO FER CABANTING

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1247 May 14, 1997 - NARITA RABE v. DELSA M. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 111858 May 14, 1997 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112620-21 May 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLI PAGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117897 May 14, 1997 - ISLAMIC DIRECTORATE OF THE PHILS., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118408 May 14, 1997 - THE ABACA CORP. OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN O. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114291 May 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 120851 May 14, 1997 - NAIA AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121176 May 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON PARAZO

  • G.R. No. 119197 May 16, 1997 - TABACALERA INSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. NORTH FRONT SHIPPING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82036 May 22, 1997 - TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103052 May 23, 1997 - MOBIL OIL PHIL., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112584 May 23, 1997 - DOMINGO INGCO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 118349 May 23, 1997 - PNCC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118432 May 23, 1997 - CONRADO COSICO, JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118978 May 23, 1997 - PHIL. TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83326 May 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO DELA TORRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95682-83 May 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ONDALOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101830 May 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTHUR BUNDANG

  • G.R. No. 111722 May 27, 1997 - ALPHA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114331 May 27, 1997 - CESAR E. A. VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115569 May 27, 1997 - GUINNUX INTERIORS, INC., ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121907 May 27, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMA S. FERRER

  • G.R. Nos. 90933-61 May 29, 1997 - NAPOCOR v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95386 May 29, 1997 - MIGUELA CAMPOS ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112650 May 29, 1997 - PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114791 May 29, 1997 - NANCY GO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114901 May 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO S. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 115763 May 29, 1997 - PIO Q. PATERNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116721 May 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO BALANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117495 May 29, 1997 - NELLY ACTA MARTINEZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119714 May 29, 1997 - SALVADOR S. ESQUIVIAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126175 May 29, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ROMUA

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. P-96-1210   May 7, 1997 - RONA S. QUIROZ v. CRISTETA D. ORFILA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. P-96-1210. May 7, 1997.]

    RONA S. QUIROZ, Court Stenographer, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, Complainant, v. CRISTETA D. ORFILA, Court Aide, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, Respondent.

    CRISTETA D. ORFILA, Complainant, v. RONA S. QUIROZ, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; COURT EMPLOYEES; ACTIONS CHARACTERIZED BY PROPRIETY AND DECORUM. — Time and again, this Court has stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. The employees’ actions at all times must be characterized by propriety and decorum and must be above suspicion.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — The records reveal that the conduct of both court personnel falls short of this standard. Shouting at each other within the court premises, quarreling to the point of throwing hard objects and causing injury to each other during working hours exhibit discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers but to the court as well. Such behavior is contrary to the ethical conduct demanded by Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."cralaw virtua1aw library

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; HIGH STRUNG AND BELLIGERENT BEHAVIOR CORRODES RESPECT FOR COURTS. — Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. Such conduct is exacted from them so that they will earn and keep the public’s respect for and confidence in the judicial service. This standard is applied with respect to a court employee’s dealings not only with the public but also with his or her co-workers in the service. Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FIGHTING BETWEEN COURT EMPLOYEES DURING OFFICE HOURS; EFFECTS THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — Fighting between court employees during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. It displays a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and dignity with which court business should be treated. Shouting at one another in the workplace and during office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers, but to the court as well. The behavior of the parties was totally unbecoming members of the judicial service. Such conduct cannot be countenanced.

    5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ENGAGING IN UNAUTHORIZED PRIVATE BUSINESS WARRANTS DISCIPLINARY ACTION; CASE AT BAR. — Furthermore, Orfila’s engaging in private business without the permission required by the Civil Service rules warrants disciplinary action. Officials and employees of the judiciary are prohibited from engaging in any private business, vocation or profession without the prior approval of the Court. Orfila’s private business was so extensive that part of the staff room chamber and even the comfort room of the court had been used to store her goods. Even the court’s equipment (i.e. the refrigerator) had been used in the process. It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. It frowns upon and penalizes disorderly behavior, unruly conduct and violation of civil service rules.


    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    Employees in the government service are bound by the rules of proper and ethical behavior. They are expected to act with self-restraint and civility at all times, even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.

    This admonition is echoed in these twin administrative cases which were begun by a complaint of Rona S. Quiroz, a stenographer of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18 against Cristeta D. Orfila, a court aide.

    The Facts


    On February 23, 1996, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez received a letter-complaint 1 from Quiroz charging Orfila with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and with pursuing an unauthorized private business inside court premises. 2 Quiroz averred that on February 20, 1996 at around 7:30-8:30 a.m., she sustained physical injuries caused by Orfila during a heated argument and scuffle between themselves. Aside from this, Quiroz also complained that Orfila was vending snacks inside the court premises thereby disturbing office functions.

    The complaint was referred to Presiding Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. of Branch 18, RTC of Manila, for appropriate action, report and recommendation. 3 Judge Laguio directed Orfila to comment. 4 In her Comment or Kontra-Salaysay, 5 Orfila stated that in the span of her thirteen years of service in the court, she had never been criminally or administratively charged with any offense and that her relationship with the other court personnel was peaceful and harmonious. She admitted to selling snacks to augment her meager salary, but denied turning the office into a sari-sari store.

    In her Reply (With Opposition), 6 Quiroz controverted Orfila’s Kontra-Salaysay, stating that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "x       x       x

    2) Contents of the said Counter-Affidavit (Kontra Salaysay) nos. 15-28, are indeed, FRAUD with some ‘alibis’ . . . as a matter of fact, she occupies some portions of the staff room for her ‘sari-sari store’, plus the chamber room and the comfort room for her convenience, together with the office refrigerator with Property No. (PN) RTC 1413-1 (B 18) which she locks before leaving the premises every late afternoon. This matter has been brought to the Chief of the City Security Force, Manila City Hall, thru Lt. Felixberto Peña, Deputy Chief, City Security Force; with the Investigation Report dated January 30, 1995 of SO1 Pablito S. Bulotano, CSF Investigator, Manila City Hall, regarding the Complaint of a Concerned Citizen of the eatery in Branch 18, RTC, Manila, (xerox copies of the 15 photographs of the ‘sari-sari store’ of Cristeta D. Orfila are hereto attached marked as Exhs.’C’, ‘C-1’ to ‘C-14’, inclusive; together with the Investigation Report dated January 30, 1995 also marked in evidence as Exh.’D’); and

    3) Contents of Counter-Affidavit (Kontra Salaysay) nos. 29 to 40, are in fact, very irrelevant, . . . on the ground that she was the one who uttered bad words against me. Although, I have the tape (which is inadmissible before the Court) for one-hour argument last February 20, 1996, the same is presently in my possession. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On June 5, 1996, Judge Laguio, Jr. submitted his Report and Recommendation to this Court. Pertinent portions of said report are quoted, as follows: 7

    ". . . (O)n February 19, 1996, the respondent (employed as Court Aide), reported . . . that when she arrived in the office that Monday morning, she noticed that the door of the courtroom was left unlocked. Since the undersigned was aware that the complainant and another employee, Gertrudes Ygrubay, were the ones that worked in the office on Saturday, February 17, 1996, he summoned them to his office and asked them about the report of the Respondent. Although the two employees claimed that they locked the courtroom door before leaving the office on February 17, 1996, the undersigned admonished them to make sure in the future that the office doors were properly locked, before leaving.

    The complainant resented the respondent’s actuation and showed it in her attitude towards the Respondent.

    On the morning of February 20, 1996, at around 7:00 o’clock, the respondent and her husband arrived in the office. They noticed debris and crumpled papers scattered in the office. While they were cleaning the office, the respondent was asked by her husband why there were garbage in spite of the fact that she had cleaned the place the previous day. At this point, the complainant arrived with a turned-on portable tape recorder, (she recorded the entire incident, Exhibit "G"). the respondent continued conversing with her husband by telling him to just clean the place, because she is only a lowly employee. The complainant butted in and confronted the respondent if she was blaming her (complainant), for the scattered garbage. The respondent a(d)monished the complainant not to interfere, because she was talking to her husband, not to her. The complainant got mad and persisted in asking whether the respondent was blaming her for the debris. The complainant further told the respondent: "Ganyan ka naman pati ang mga bukas na pinto ng opisina sinusumbong mo kay Judge at pinagsasabi mo rin mayroon kaming ginagawang kalokohan." The respondent explained that she did not accused her, or anybody in the office of any wrong doing in connection with the incident she reported to the Judge. One thing led to another and a heated exchange of words, curses, insults and recriminations ensued between the two. At the height of the arguments, the complainant suddenly threw her glass paperweight, Exhibit "1", at the respondent, hitting the latter’s right arm and jade bracelet, Exhibit "2", and thereby damaging a portion thereof, Exhibit "2-A." After which, the complainant grabbed a pointed marble paper-weight and attempted to hurl it at the respondent, but the latter held the two hands of the former and they grappled with each other for the possession of the pointed marble paper weight until the respondent succeeded in snatching it from the complainant.

    As a result of the scuffle, the complainant sustained scratches on her face and right hand, which lead (sic) to the filing of criminal case against respondent for physical injuries.

    On complainant’s accusations of the alleged use by the respondent of the court’s office as a "sari-sari" such assertion is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation. The respondent admitted having brought foodstuff to the office and sold them to her co-employees for their snacks and/or lunch to augment her meager income. But she transacted her private business during breaktime in discreet and considerate manner. She did not disturb or inconvenient (sic) the other employees in the office."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Judge Laguio, Jr. reported that Orfila had been competent, upright, efficient and hardworking during her thirteen years of service in the court and had stopped vending food inside the court premises upon being advised of its illegality. Since such acts constitute a light offense under civil service rules, he recommended that Orfila be reprimanded.

    In view of the report of Judge Laguio, Jr. showing facts indicting both complainant and respondent, we deemed Orfila’s comment as a countercharge and Quiroz’ reply as a counter-comment.

    The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its Memorandum dated July 10, 1996, 8 found that both court employees exhibited belligerent behavior contrary to the proper conduct and decorum expected of them. It recommended that Orfila and Quiroz be fined P1,000.00 each for discourtesy and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for Orfila’s unauthorized private business.

    Issue

    Does the aforesaid conduct of both Court Stenographer Quiroz and Court Aide Orfila warrant the imposition of administrative action?

    The Court’s Ruling


    The Court agrees with the OCA and finds the conduct of both Quiroz and Orfila short of the high standards of the judicial service.

    Discourtesy and Misconduct

    Time and again, this Court has stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. 9 The employees’ actions at all times must be characterized by propriety and decorum and must be above suspicion. 10

    The records reveal that the conduct of both court personnel falls short of this standard. Shouting at each other within the court premises, quarreling to the point of throwing hard objects and causing injury to each other during working hours exhibit discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers but to the court as well. Such behavior is contrary to the ethical conduct demanded by Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees." 11

    Under the Civil Service Rules, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service is a grave offense punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year. 12 Simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. 13 Judge Laguio’s Report found that the misdeeds of the parties constituted only a light offense. Considering that both parties had served the trial court for many years, it was deemed too harsh to sanction them with a stiffer penalty. However, the OCA recommended a more severe penalty in the greater interest of protecting public service, to which we agree.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. 14 High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. 15 Such conduct is exacted from them so that they will earn and keep the public’s respect for and confidence in the judicial service. 16 This standard is applied with respect to a court employee’s dealings not only with the public but also with his or her co-workers in the service. Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts. 17

    Fighting between court employees during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. It displays a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and dignity with which court business should be treated. Shouting at one another in the workplace and during office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers, but to the court as well. 18 The behavior of the parties was totally unbecoming members of the judicial service. Such conduct cannot be countenanced.

    Unauthorized Private Business

    Furthermore, Orfila’s engaging in private business without the permission required by the Civil Service Rules warrants disciplinary action. Officials and employees of the judiciary are prohibited from engaging in any private business, vocation or profession without the prior approval of the Court. 19 Orfila’s private business was so extensive that part of the staff room, chamber and even the comfort room of the court had been used to store her goods. Even the court’s equipment (i.e. the refrigerator) had been used in the process.

    It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. 20 It frowns upon and penalizes disorderly behavior, unruly conduct and violation of civil service rules.

    WHEREFORE, Rona S. Quiroz is FINED One Thousand Pesos for discourtesy and simple misconduct; and Cristeta D. Orfila is also FINED One Thousand Pesos for simple misconduct and engaging in unauthorized private business. Both are further WARNED that a repetition of said actions shall be dealt with more severely.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    SO ORDERED.

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

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 3-4. This letter-complaint was later supplemented with a Complaint-Affidavit; see rollo pp. 63-67.

    2. Rollo, pp. 3-6.

    3. First Indorsement, Rollo, p. 1.

    4. Memo, Rollo, p. 7.

    5. Rollo, pp. 13-18.

    6. Ibid, pp. 22-23.

    7. Rollo, pp. 140-141.

    8. Rollo, pp. 1-5.

    9. Re: Ms. Teresita S . Sabido, 242 SCRA 432, 434, March 17, 1995.

    10. Office of the Court Administrator v. Yambao, 221 SCRA 77, 86, April 7, 1993; Del Rosario v. Bascar, Jr., 206 SCRA 678, 686, March 3, 1992; and Callejo, Jr. v. Garcia, 206 SCRA 491, 496, February 25, 1992.

    11. Apaga v. Ponce, 245 SCRA 233, 241, June 21, 1995.

    12. Section 23 (t), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws.

    13. Section 23, (b) on less grave offenses, ibid.

    14. Office of Court Administrator v. Bucoy, 235 SCRA 588, 595, August 25, 1994; and Amosco v. Magro, 73 SCRA 107, 108-109, September 30, 1976.

    15. Policarpio v. Fortus, 248 SCRA 272, 275, September 18, 1995; and Flores v. Ganadar, 61 SCRA 430.

    16. Tablate v. Seechung, 234 SCRA 161, 167, July 15, 1994.

    17. Office of the Court Administrator v. Bucoy, supra.

    18. Apaga v. Ponce, supra.

    19. Tablate v. Seechung, supra.; and Gaculas v. Maralit, 235 SCRA 585, 587, August 25, 1994.

    20. R.A. 6713, Sec. 2.; and Policarpio v. Fortus, supra.

    Adm. Matter No. P-96-1210   May 7, 1997 - RONA S. QUIROZ v. CRISTETA D. ORFILA


    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