ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. P-92-670. January 13, 1999]

REMEDIOS ANTONIO vs. ELEAZAR GASPAR.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.

"A.M. No. P-92-670 (Remedios Antonio vs. Eleazar Gaspar, Interpreter, RTC-Branch 133, Makati City.)

The complaint1 [Rollo, pp. 3-5.] dated January 31, 1992 of Mrs. Remedios Antonio against respondent Eleazar Gaspar, a court interpreter of Baranch 133, regional Trial Court, Makati City, arose from the latter's unwarranted remarks, as to which a heated argument with the complainant ensued, and the latter charged respondent with conduct becoming of a court employee, intriguing against honor, less serious physical injuries and acts of lasciviousness.

Judge William M. Bayhon, to whom this case was referred for investigation, report and recommendation, related the following facts:

".that on November 19, 1991, the date of the hearing of Civil Case No. 90-3131 entitled "Remedios Antonio vs. Teodoro Pontiveros," the complainant was indisposed and was represented in Court by her daughter Angelita Antonio who heard respondent Gaspar made unpleasant remarks to the opposing counsel loud enough to be heard by everybody in the courtroom, to wit: "(I)yang si Mrs. Antonio napakaraming asunto at hindi nagbabayad sa mga abugado niya."

".that on December 3, 1991, just before the hearing of aid case, the complainant sat beside her lawyer, who was then sitting opposite the respondent and talked quietly to the latter regarding the remarks that he made and while gesturing with her forefinger, she asked respondent what he has against her and asked him to apologize since she brought along with her the checks which were proof of her payments to her lawyers. Respondent glared at her and without a word assaulted her, seized her right hand, squeezed her fingers and twisted her arm with his tight grip on her fingers. Her instant reflex lifted her from her seat in an attempt to defend herself by pushing respondent and pulling herself from his grip but respondent kept on pushing her down to her seat while his left hand held her breast which is why she shouted: "Aba, suso ko iyan, a! Bakit ka nanghihipo?"

In addition, respondent made a threatening gesture and uttered the words "Isa ka pa. Putang ina mo." To her daughter as the complainant was testifying in court." 2 [Report and Recommendation, pp. 1-2.]

From the foregoing recital, Judge Bayhon found that complainant failed to prove that respondent indeed made the unpleasant remarks, overhead by complainant's daughter and which was the root of the incident in question. He found it unbelievable considering that there was no reason or provocation for respondent to suddenly assault a 64 year old woman, seize her hand, squeeze her fingers and twist her arm with his tight grip. Furthermore, these acts were allegedly done in the presence of several people, including her lawyer and none of them lifted a finger to help her.3 [Ibid., 8-9.]

Judge Bayhon correctly observed that it is the natural reaction of respondent to brush off the finger pointed at his face.

However, respondent is a public servant, especially an employee of he Court, and should have handled the situation by either ignoring the complainant or leaving her alone in the courtroom where the incident happened. Because of respondent's unwarranted reaction, he is now faulted by complainant.

The recommendation of the investigating judge is to impose a penalty of five (5) days' suspension without salary.4 [Report and Recommendation, page 10.]

We disagree.

The penalty of suspension is rather harsh considering that complainant failed to establish the charges against respondent. However, this does not mean that respondent is completely exonerated for his behavior.

It must be emphasized that courts are established to serve the public, especially litigants. All court officers and employees, of which respondent is one, have the duty to comfort themselves in a manner as to the respect and trust of the people.5 [Remedios Hermoso vs. Amparo Mendoza, 112 SCRA 54 (1982).]

Respondent as a public officer is required to exhibit civility and courtesy in his dealings with the public.

Conformably with our ruling in similar cases,6 [Emerito Agcaoli vs. Jose Ramos, 241 SCRA 232 (1995) citing Balagot vs. Opinion, 195 SCRA 429 (1991); Soyangco vs. Maglalang, 196 SCRA 5 (1991).] aside from the fact that this appears to be the first offense of the respondent in his thirty-six (36) years of government service, twenty-seven (27) of which are in the judiciary, admonition will suffice as penalty for his misbehavior.

WHEREFORE, the Court admonishes respondent Eleazar Gaspar to be more prudent and tactful in his official conduct. The case is declared closed and terminated.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE