ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. 2001-45-SC.November 20, 2001]

ATTY. FLORIZA LABOG vs. MONTA�A

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 20 2001.

A.M. No. 2001-45-SC (Atty. Floriza Labog vs. Jessica Monta�a, Supply Officer II of the Property Division, SC.)

A complaint for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Employee was filed by Atty. Floriza B. Labog, then Court Attorney IV of the Office of Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago against Ms. Jessica A. Monta�a, Supply Officer II of the Property Division, Supreme Court.

In her letter, Atty. Labog stated that at around 8:30 o'clock in the morning of August 16, 2001, she went to the Property Division to look for her gray uniform.When she was inside the said office, she was told by the respondent who is one of the employees there to look for it herself if there was any unclaimed uniform inside the stockroom.Nobody assisted Atty. Labog in the stockroom which she described as having the atmosphere of a "morgue."Because of the stifling atmosphere, Atty. Labog went out of the stockroom bringing with her a uniform still wrapped in plastic.When she opened the plastic, the respondent sharply told her, "Huwag mong kunin ang mga nandiyan."Atty. Labog replied, "Ate, galing po itong plastic sa loob.Di ba sabi niyo doon ako titingin?"Incensed, the respondent answered, "Eh, baka may mawala diyan!"Ako ang in-charge sa mga iyan!"

Atty. Labog kept calm and looked at the uniform, to see if it would fit her.The respondent, while smoking banged the door of the stockroom and the chairs in the Property Office, displaying her ire at Atty. Labog in front of the former's female co-employees.

Embarrased by the actuations of the respondent and seeing that no uniform fitted her, Atty. Labog left the Property Office.She proceeded to the Administrative Office and asked Mrs. Flordeliza Cruz what steps to take to file a complaint against the irate respondent.Atty. Labog was advised by Mrs. Cruz to verify first the name of the respondent employee.At the Property office, Atty. Labog who was asked to look for a certain "Jay" approached the still irate respondent and inquired, "Sino po si Ms. Jay?"The respondent haughtily replied, "Ako. Bakit?"Atty. Labog then asked, "May ide-deliver pa po bang mga uniforms ditto?"The respondent dismissively retorted, "Wala, hindi ko alam," and immediately turned her back at Atty. Labog and went her way.Two (2) female co-employees of the respondent witnessed the whole incident.When Atty. Labog returned to the Administrative Office, she was informed that the real name of "Ms. Jay" is Jessica Monta�a.

Attached to Atty. Labog's letter complaint are affidavits executed by her co-workers, the security guard assigned to the Office of Justice Santiago and the Supreme Court librarian attesting to her good moral character.

When asked to answer to complaint filed against her, respondent Ms. Monta�a presented a completely different version of the story.She claimed that at around 8:30 o'clock in the morning of August 16, 2001, their phone in the Property Office rang.When Ms. Monta�a answered the phone, Atty. Labog who was the woman on the other end of the line inquired if she was the one in charge of the employees' uniforms.Ms. Monta�a reportedly answered, "Yes, ma'am in a cheerful manner.The caller began in an angry tone, "Si Atty. Labog 'to, kasi dito sa opisina namin, ako lang ang walang uniform, lahat sila meron na, ako lang ang wala."Ms. Monta�a explained to Atty. Labog that if she was inquiring about the uniforms from La Belle, she (respondent) could not tell her when would the next delivery of the uniforms from La Bells would be because there was a shortage of the supply of textiles to the shop.Atty. Labog did not lower her tone saying, "Meron na akong La Belle.Yung gray, wala ako, may nagsabi sa akin na meron daw uniform na pwedeng isukat at ibigay sa akin."Ms. Monta�a then replied that the uniforms which were withheld from employees who had retired or resigned were already available for issue.Ms. Monta�a, to calm Atty. Labog even inquired about the size of the latter jesting that only uniforms in small and medium sizes were available.Ms. Monta�a then instructed Atty. Labog to go to their office to pick up her other set of uniform.After 15 minutes, Atty. Labog entered the room and without greeting "Good Morning" or introducing herself demanded, "Saan ako magsusukat ng uniform?"Ms. Monta�a's co-employee, Michelle Ciudadano, inquired, "Sino po sila?"Atty. Labog who did not bother to introduce herself reportedly raised her voice saying, "Ako nga yung tumawag kanina ditto."Ms. Monta�a then said, "Sige ho, pasok na kayo."Thereafter, Ms. Monta�a requested an employee named Charie of the Latest touch, the company supplying the gray uniforms of the Court, to assist Atty. Labog.Atty. Labog, however, just ignored Charie and opened the plastic bad which she got inside the stockroom.Ms. Monta�a's officemate Michelle then said, "Ma'am hindi po puwede iyan.Meron na pong may-ari niyan."At that point, Atty. Labog, looked sharply at Michelle and said, "Galing nga ito sa loob.Ito o, hindi niyo ba nakikita, resigned!"She then dropped the bag angrily.Ms. Monta�a explained to Atty. Labog "sinasabi lang po naming dahil baka may mawala kami and mananagot dyan." Atty Labog reportedly just ignored Ms. Monta�a and looked at the uniforms.After seeing that no uniform seemed to fit her, Atty. Labog left without saying a word.

Shortly thereafter, when Ms. Monta�a was in the comfort room, an officemate told her that someone was looking for her.Ms. Monta�a was surprised to see Atty. Labog back in their office where she heard her say in a low tone of voice, "Good morning.Kayo po ba si Jay, 'yong in charge sa uniform?Galing po ako sa office.May mag de-deliver daw po ngayon.Meron po bang magde-deliver?"Ms. Monta�a simply said,"Hindi ko alam."Atty. Labog then graciously thanked her and left.Ms. Monta�a said she was "practically shocked to witness the sudden change in her [Atty. Labog's] attitude."

Ms. Monta�a's version of the story is corroborated by a number of her officemates who claimed that Atty. Labog went to their office without introducing herself and haughtily demanded "Saan ako magsusukat?"

Atty. Labog, in her reply, claimed that Ms. Monta�a twisted her version of the incident.Atty. Labog pointed out that the affidavits corroborating the story of Ms. Monta�a were executed by the latter's officemates and friends who were expected to side with her.Atty. Labog stressed that she was relatively new in the service as at the time of the incident, as she was only in her ninth month as a court employee. Hence it is improbable that she, a stranger to most court employees, would act in an arrogant and discriminatory manner knowing that she could not gain sympathy from people who hardly knew her.Atty. Labog refuted Ms. Monta�a's allegation that she was arrogant in their telephone conversation and that she raised her voice at Ms. Monta�a upon arriving at the Property Office.Atty. Labog reasoned out that she could not have done such an act in a place where she was a total stranger and all the people there could easily gang up on her.Atty. Labog reiterated that she only went to the Property Office to seek assistance in getting her uniform and that the lease she expected of Ms. Monta�a was to be courteous enough to assist her.Finally, Atty. Labog averred that she did not personally know Ms. Monta�a or anybody from the Property Division so she had no reason to hold a grudge against any of them and to act allegedly in such discourteous manner as Ms. Monta�a claimed.

On September 11, 2001, an informal investigation was conducted.Both parties agreed to submit the case for evaluation based on the pleadings and evidence already submitted.

The Chief Administrative Officer of this Court, Atty. Eden Candelaria, said that the dispute would have not reached the Court had the parties exercised self restraint, honor and decency demanded of them as public servants.Atty. Candelaria noted that, during the informal investigation, both parties were not thoroughly candid.Nevetheless, she found incredible the respondent's claim that complainant acted in an offensive manner inasmuch as complainant was new in the service and only asking for a favor.Atty. Candelaria stated that it may be assumed, though not admitted that complainant never greeted respondent nor introduced herself when she made the follow up; however, this was not enough reason for respondent to lose her temper.Respondent was in the office and on duty.Her office was designated to serve and cater to the needs of the employees, particularly the release of uniforms.Hence, she is required to exhibit civility and courtesy in dealing with them.Respondent's behavior was aggravated by the fact that she was smoking inside the office, an act which is in violation of Administrative Circular No. 09-99 dated July 27, 1999 which reads:

"Conformably with Administrative Circular No. 1-99 issued by the Chief Justice on 15 January 1999 on the enhancement of the courts as temples of justice, the following shall not be allowed within court houses and, more specifically, session halls and offices of court officials and personnel except in designated areas or areas assigned to food concessionaires, as the case may be:

1. Smoking, which is established to be hazardous to health both for smokers and the passive smokers;

xxx������ xxx������ xxx

Atty. Candelaria recommends that respondent be severely reprimanded to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.A stiffer penalty was not recommended in view of the following mitigating circumstances:(1) respondent has been in the service of the Judiciary for twenty (20) years; (2) this was the first time that she has been charged administratively; and (3) for the past three (3) consecutive semesters she had a very satisfactory performance rating indicating that she is an efficient employee.

We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of Atty. Candelaria.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 employee's actions at all times must be characterized by propriety and decorum and must be above suspicion.

If complainant, as respondent claimed, were arrogant and overbearing when she called up and arrived at the Property Office, respondent should have respondent more civilly.Respondent, who has been in the service for a much longer period of time than complainant should be a model of gentility and refinement to show to those who are new in the service how a public servant is expected to behave.It bears emphasis that an efficient employee should not only be competent but also exhibit civility and propriety in her dealings with her co-workers and with the public while performing her duties.Respondent's boorish conduct of banging doors and chairs certainly falls short of this standard.It is disappointing to note that such ill-mannered behavior was exhibited by the respondent.

High strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service especially when done at the workplace and during working hours.Such conduct shows discourtesy not only towards the public.Court personnel are enjoined to act with self restraint and civility at all times.Such conduct is expected from them so that they will earn and keep the public's respect 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 corrodes respect for the courts. ¹ Quiroz v. Orfila, 272 SCRA 324, 331 [1997].

Accordingly, Ms. Jessica Monta�a is REPRIMANDED for conduct unbecoming of a public employee and is advised to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.She is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar actions in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE