SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

A.M. No. P-152 November 29, 1974

MARCIANA P. FLORES, Complainant, vs. SOLEDAD V. GANADEN, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

TEEHANKEE, J.:

Two administrative complaints charging respondent Soledad V. Ganaden, a court stenographer of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch I, Calaklan Olongapo City with acts of grave oral defamation and libel have been filed by complainant Marciana P. Flores, a clerk of the same court. These separate charges are also the subject of pending criminal complaints against respondent filed with the Olongapo City court at the instance of complainant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As to the first complaint dated July 18, 1973, respondent admitted in her comment and affidavit that she had uttered against complainant certain defamatory remarks (asserting that complainant had committed abortion when she was single) in the course of an altercation they had in their office. Respondent pleaded by way of mitigation that although she was not justifying her acts that she lost control of her temper and had been provoked by complainant. The record shows obviously that the protagonists are not on good terms with each other.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Respondent's admission renders unnecessary a formal investigation and she shall be administered a reprimand with warning for her censurable conduct. As the Court recently stressed in Atienza vs. Perez * those in the government service, are bound by rules of proper and decorous behavior in the office premises and "high-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in the government service, where the personnel and employees are enjoined to act with self restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence."chanrobles virtual law library

Complainant's second complaint dated August 21, 1973 stems from the first and charges respondent with libel and misconduct for having filed in July, 1973 official complaints against her (complainant) asserting that complainant had allegedly submitted to abortion and falsified her applications for sick leave by stating the cause of her sickness as influenza. (According to the complainant, the provincial fiscal dismissed respondent's charge of falsification against her). Since complainant's criminal case for libel against respondent is pending and subjudice, her second complaint shall be provisionally dismissed without prejudice to its refiling should the same be warranted by the result of the said case and there be cause to hold that the acts complained of are not covered by the reprimand herein administered on respondent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ACCORDINGLY, the Court administers the penalty of reprimand on respondent for her censurable conduct, with the warning that a repetition of similar misconduct shall be dealt with severely. The second complaint is provisionally dismissed as hereinabove stated. Let a copy of this resolution be entered in respondent's personal record.