December 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2476 : December 10, 2008] MARIE JUNE RIESGO V. ATTY. LAURENCE JOEL M. TALIPING, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BR. 50, MANILA :
[A.M. No. P-08-2476 : December 10, 2008]
MARIE JUNE RIESGO V. ATTY. LAURENCE JOEL M. TALIPING, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BR. 50, MANILA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your Information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 December 2008:
A.M. No. P-08-2476 (Marie June Riesgo v. Atty. Laurence Joel M. Taliping, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 50, Manila).- This administrative matter arose from a Verified Administrative Complaint[1] filed against Atty. Lawrence Joel Taliping, Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 50, Regional Trial Court of Manila for violation of the Civil Service Law and the Judicial Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.
Complainant Marie June Riesgo alleges that on 17 October 2007, during the hearing of Special Proceedings No. 02-102764 entitled, Intestate Estate Proceedings of Emilio B. Riesgo, Sr., she arrived in court at 8:05 a.m. and proceeded to the staff room of Branch 50 to avoid meeting her adversaries in the case who were already inside the court room. She asked one of the employees whether Presiding Judge William Simon Peralta would be attending the Judges' Convention on that day. Respondent Atty. Taliping answered in the affirmative, adding that all hearings of cases would be reset. Complainant informed respondent that she would agree to the resetting but that she would wait outside the court room for her lawyer to arrive. She excused herself and informed respondent where she would be. When respondent went out of the staff room to photocopy some documents, complainant informed him that her lawyer would be late and thus had requested a second call. At 9:15 a.m., Atty. Genato, counsel for the oppositors, arrived and asked complainant whether the hearing would push through. Complainant answered in the affirmative and informed him that his clients were in the court room. Shortly thereafter, Atty. Genato emerged from the court room informing complainant that there was nobody left in the court room and they had already signed the minutes resetting the case to 4 February 2008. Complainant was shocked. She immediately went to respondent and asked him why she had not been informed. Respondent allegedly answered in a high handed manner, scolded her and berated her with a leer and asked her in the vernacular, "Bakit! Asan ba ang court room?" Complainant was humiliated as this was done in the presence of other court personnel. Nonetheless, she signed the minutes. Complainant then told respondent that she would be filing a complaint against him, to which respondent replied, "Eh di mag-complain ka!" On 18 January 2008, she secured a copy of the minutes of the 17 October 2007 hearing. She noticed that beside her signature was written "10:05 a.m." which neither she nor her counsel had written. To bolster her complaint, she attached the affidavit of one Allan Basa who allegedly witnessed the incident.
In his Comment dated 10 March 2008, respondent alleges that on 17 October 2007, complainant indeed inquired from his officemate whether the hearing would push through and she was informed that it would not in view of the annual judges' convention. Thereafter, respondent went to the photocopying center. Complainant was seated alone near the photocopying machine. She approached him and informed him that her lawyer would be late and asked that he call her case for resetting upon the arrival of her lawyer. Respondent replied that he would ask the Court Interpreter to make a second call, if possible. Thereafter, he went back to the court room. At around 10:00 a.m., he overheard complainant and the court interpreter engaging in a verbal tussle. He pacified them and asked what the problem was. Upon seeing him, complainant arrogantly and in a shouting manner asked him why she had not been notified when her case was called for resetting. Respondent answered, "Dapat andito ka nung tinawag ang kaso mo, bakit asan ba ang court?" He also explained that it was not possible to call her case only when her lawyer had arrived because it was already past 10:00 a.m. and counsel for the other party had another hearing to attend.
Respondent adds that complainant may have been further agitated when she heard him ask the court interpreter to just ignore complainant's comments. This prompted her to point her finger at him and threaten him with an administrative case. To this, respondent answered, "Di mag-file ka ng complaint, karapatan mo 'yan" Respondent clarifies that it was the court interpreter who placed the time "10:05 a.m.." beside complainant's signature in the minutes to indicate the time when she signed the same. He denies having publicly humiliated complainant. He contends the allegations in the complaint are lies or exaggerations of what truly had transpired on 17 October 2007. Finally, he notes that the incident was not witnessed by Allan Basa since complainant was alone when he saw her seated beside the photocopying machine and when she had engaged in a verbal tussle with the court interpreter.
Complainant filed a Reply dated 15 April 2008 to respondent's Comment, refuting the latter's allegations and branding them as fallacious, misleading and untruthful.
The matter was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila for investigation, report and recommendation. After conducting the hearings where the parties were able to present their evidence and witnesses, Investigating Judge Reynaldo G. Ros submitted his Investigation Report dated 30 October 2008. The investigating judge found inconsistencies in complainant's and Allan Basa's versions of the event with regard to the place where the incident happened. However, there is an admission of an exchange of words between complainant and respondent. Respondent admitted that when complainant asked him why he did not call her when her case was called for resetting, he uttered, "Dapat andito ka nung tinawag ang kaso mo, bakit asan ba ang court?"This is a sarcastic statement which respondent should have avoided. As an officer of the court, respondent is enjoined to act with civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness. There is a proper way of answering questions even during arguments.Respondent uttered the statement without regard to the manner of delivery and without any trace of courtesy.
Respondent is found to have violated Canon IV, Section 2 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which provides that "[c]ourt personnel shall carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible." Respondent's admitted acts fall short of this standard. As the investigating judge states, it behooves respondent to observe courtesy, keeping in mind always that arrogance and discourtesy reflect adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Thus, he recommended that respondent be found guilty of simple discourtesy and that he be admonished or censured with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The recommendation is well-taken.
The Court has constantly stressed the need for promptness, courtesy and diligence in public service. Public officials and employees are under obligation to perform the duties of their offices honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their ability. They, as recipients of the public trust, should demonstrate courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in their official actuations to the public at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insulting behavior. In particular, the conduct of court employees must always be characterized by strict propriety and decorum in dealing with other people. There is no room for discourtesy of any kind in the ranks of court employees.[2]
This being his first offense, respondent should be reprimanded in accordance with Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Lawrence Joel Taliping, Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 50, Regional Trial Court of Manila, is hereby REPRIMANDED for discourtesy in the performance of official duty with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. Let this decision be noted in the personal record of herein respondent.
A.M. No. P-08-2476 (Marie June Riesgo v. Atty. Laurence Joel M. Taliping, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 50, Manila).- This administrative matter arose from a Verified Administrative Complaint[1] filed against Atty. Lawrence Joel Taliping, Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 50, Regional Trial Court of Manila for violation of the Civil Service Law and the Judicial Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.
Complainant Marie June Riesgo alleges that on 17 October 2007, during the hearing of Special Proceedings No. 02-102764 entitled, Intestate Estate Proceedings of Emilio B. Riesgo, Sr., she arrived in court at 8:05 a.m. and proceeded to the staff room of Branch 50 to avoid meeting her adversaries in the case who were already inside the court room. She asked one of the employees whether Presiding Judge William Simon Peralta would be attending the Judges' Convention on that day. Respondent Atty. Taliping answered in the affirmative, adding that all hearings of cases would be reset. Complainant informed respondent that she would agree to the resetting but that she would wait outside the court room for her lawyer to arrive. She excused herself and informed respondent where she would be. When respondent went out of the staff room to photocopy some documents, complainant informed him that her lawyer would be late and thus had requested a second call. At 9:15 a.m., Atty. Genato, counsel for the oppositors, arrived and asked complainant whether the hearing would push through. Complainant answered in the affirmative and informed him that his clients were in the court room. Shortly thereafter, Atty. Genato emerged from the court room informing complainant that there was nobody left in the court room and they had already signed the minutes resetting the case to 4 February 2008. Complainant was shocked. She immediately went to respondent and asked him why she had not been informed. Respondent allegedly answered in a high handed manner, scolded her and berated her with a leer and asked her in the vernacular, "Bakit! Asan ba ang court room?" Complainant was humiliated as this was done in the presence of other court personnel. Nonetheless, she signed the minutes. Complainant then told respondent that she would be filing a complaint against him, to which respondent replied, "Eh di mag-complain ka!" On 18 January 2008, she secured a copy of the minutes of the 17 October 2007 hearing. She noticed that beside her signature was written "10:05 a.m." which neither she nor her counsel had written. To bolster her complaint, she attached the affidavit of one Allan Basa who allegedly witnessed the incident.
In his Comment dated 10 March 2008, respondent alleges that on 17 October 2007, complainant indeed inquired from his officemate whether the hearing would push through and she was informed that it would not in view of the annual judges' convention. Thereafter, respondent went to the photocopying center. Complainant was seated alone near the photocopying machine. She approached him and informed him that her lawyer would be late and asked that he call her case for resetting upon the arrival of her lawyer. Respondent replied that he would ask the Court Interpreter to make a second call, if possible. Thereafter, he went back to the court room. At around 10:00 a.m., he overheard complainant and the court interpreter engaging in a verbal tussle. He pacified them and asked what the problem was. Upon seeing him, complainant arrogantly and in a shouting manner asked him why she had not been notified when her case was called for resetting. Respondent answered, "Dapat andito ka nung tinawag ang kaso mo, bakit asan ba ang court?" He also explained that it was not possible to call her case only when her lawyer had arrived because it was already past 10:00 a.m. and counsel for the other party had another hearing to attend.
Respondent adds that complainant may have been further agitated when she heard him ask the court interpreter to just ignore complainant's comments. This prompted her to point her finger at him and threaten him with an administrative case. To this, respondent answered, "Di mag-file ka ng complaint, karapatan mo 'yan" Respondent clarifies that it was the court interpreter who placed the time "10:05 a.m.." beside complainant's signature in the minutes to indicate the time when she signed the same. He denies having publicly humiliated complainant. He contends the allegations in the complaint are lies or exaggerations of what truly had transpired on 17 October 2007. Finally, he notes that the incident was not witnessed by Allan Basa since complainant was alone when he saw her seated beside the photocopying machine and when she had engaged in a verbal tussle with the court interpreter.
Complainant filed a Reply dated 15 April 2008 to respondent's Comment, refuting the latter's allegations and branding them as fallacious, misleading and untruthful.
The matter was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila for investigation, report and recommendation. After conducting the hearings where the parties were able to present their evidence and witnesses, Investigating Judge Reynaldo G. Ros submitted his Investigation Report dated 30 October 2008. The investigating judge found inconsistencies in complainant's and Allan Basa's versions of the event with regard to the place where the incident happened. However, there is an admission of an exchange of words between complainant and respondent. Respondent admitted that when complainant asked him why he did not call her when her case was called for resetting, he uttered, "Dapat andito ka nung tinawag ang kaso mo, bakit asan ba ang court?"This is a sarcastic statement which respondent should have avoided. As an officer of the court, respondent is enjoined to act with civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness. There is a proper way of answering questions even during arguments.Respondent uttered the statement without regard to the manner of delivery and without any trace of courtesy.
Respondent is found to have violated Canon IV, Section 2 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which provides that "[c]ourt personnel shall carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible." Respondent's admitted acts fall short of this standard. As the investigating judge states, it behooves respondent to observe courtesy, keeping in mind always that arrogance and discourtesy reflect adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Thus, he recommended that respondent be found guilty of simple discourtesy and that he be admonished or censured with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The recommendation is well-taken.
The Court has constantly stressed the need for promptness, courtesy and diligence in public service. Public officials and employees are under obligation to perform the duties of their offices honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their ability. They, as recipients of the public trust, should demonstrate courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in their official actuations to the public at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insulting behavior. In particular, the conduct of court employees must always be characterized by strict propriety and decorum in dealing with other people. There is no room for discourtesy of any kind in the ranks of court employees.[2]
This being his first offense, respondent should be reprimanded in accordance with Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Lawrence Joel Taliping, Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 50, Regional Trial Court of Manila, is hereby REPRIMANDED for discourtesy in the performance of official duty with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. Let this decision be noted in the personal record of herein respondent.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHl YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) LUDICHl YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-6.
[2] Narvasa-Kampana v. Josue, A.M. No. 2004-09-SC, 30 June 2004,433 SCRA 284, 288-289.
