FIRST
DIVISION
ATTY.
LELU P. CONTRERAS,
Complainant,
A. M. No. P-96-1189
October 16, 1997
-versus-
SALVADOR
C. MIRANDO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Former Clerk of
Court Crescencio L. Cortes Jr.
of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Br. 34, repeatedly called
attention
to the responsibility of respondent Salvador C. Mirando in handling his
job as Clerk III in the same office through several memoranda which
apparently
fell on deaf ears. Atty. Cortes Jr. was, therefore, constrained to file
his letter-complaint[1]
of 29 October 1993 charging respondent with gross inefficiency and
unexplained
absences and tardiness. The letter-complaint however was held in the
suspense
files after respondent promised several times to mend his ways and
perform
his job properly.
But respondent
reneged on his promises. He reverted
to his old ways after only two (2) weeks of good behavior. Atty. Lelu
P.
Contreras, herein complainant, who succeeded Atty. Crescencio L. Cortes
Jr. as the current immediate supervisor of respondent, conferred with
him
and reminded him of the nature of his responsibilities but the efforts
of complainant proved futile. Hence, respondent was administratively
charged
in a sworn-letter complaint dated 16 November 1995[2]
with (a) conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; (b)
gross
neglect of duty; (c) refusal to perform official duty; (d) inefficiency
and incompetence in the performance of official duties; (e) frequent
absences
or tardiness; (f) failure to act promptly on letters and requests
within
fifteen (15) days from receipt; and, (g) failure to process documents
and
complete action on documents and papers within a reasonable time from
preparation
thereof. Complainant averred that respondent's work attitude was so
incorrigible
and widespread, penetrating the very core of his being, that no amount
of "sweet talk" or stringent measures could resuscitate him.cralaw:red
Atty. Contreras
specifically charged respondent
Mirando with frequent unexplained absences, reporting to work drunk,
documents,
papers and transmittals requiring his immediate attention were left
unacted
upon, and asking money from litigants in exchange for small favors.cralaw:red
In his Comment,[3]
respondent denied any knowledge of the accusations against him. He
claimed
instead that, on the contrary, he performed his duties and
responsibilities
religiously and regularly. Thus he prayed for the dismissal of the
administrative
case filed against him.cralaw:red
When this case
was referred to Judge Reno R. Gonzales
for investigation, report and recommendation, respondent manifested his
admission and acceptance of the charges filed against him. At the same
time, he asked for clemency and promised not to commit the same or
similar
acts again. Judge Gonzales therefore recommended the penalty of fine
equivalent
to respondent's two [2] months salary with a warning that repetition of
the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
There is no
dispute that respondent was remiss
in his official duties as he had precisely admitted this fact before
Judge
Gonzales. Administration of justice is a sacred task. It demands the
highest
degree of efficiency, dedication and professionalism. Respondent must
be
reminded of the State policy in promoting the highest standard of
ethics
in public service which is embedded in specific legal obligations.
Public
officials and employees are at all times accountable to the people.
Hence
they shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility,
integrity,
competence and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest
lives,
and uphold public interest over personal interest.[4]
They shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree
of
excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter
public
service with utmost dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to
discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue
patronage.[5]
These unsettling
times have witnessed the judiciary
as the target of strong criticisms, and at times even vile innuendoes
and
imputations. Although they remain unproved, false and unfounded, to a
certain
extent this cacophony has sullied the reputation and integrity of the
institution
and compromised the moral ascendancy of its members. It is therefore
incumbent
upon every member of the judiciary family to work hand in hand in
restoring
and upholding, rather than destroying, the integrity of the courts to
which
they belong.cralaw:red
We are gratified
to know that since the filing
of this administrative complaint, there has been a marked improvement
in
respondent's performance of his official duties and responsibilities.
We
trust that this change was not brought about more by fear of any
sanction
which the filing of this case might bring him but rather by a genuine
realization
by respondent of the significance of his office, the role he plays, the
responsibility he assumes and the burden of trust reposed in him.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, for
neglect of duty, respondent Salvador
C. Mirando Jr. is FINED P5,000.00 to be paid in ten [10] equal monthly
installments of P500.00 each with a WARNING that repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr.,
Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
______________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 7.
[2]
Id., p. 2.
[3]
Id., p. 22.
[4]Sec. 2, R. A. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
[5]Sec. 4 [B], id. |
