Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 2008-01-SC : July 06, 2010] ATTY. ROBERYN JOY M. NAVARRO, COMPLAINANT -VERSUS- ANNLYN OCAMPO JOSUE AND BLESILA ELVYN T. MACALINTAL, RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2010, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 2008-01-SC - ATTY. ROBERYN JOY M. NAVARRO, complainant -versus- ANNLYN OCAMPO JOSUE and BLESILA ELVYN T. MACALINTAL, respondents.


For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Annlyn O. Josue of the Court's Resolution dated April 6, 2010, finding her administratively liable for simple misconduct. The dispositive portion of our Resolution reads:

... The Court Resolved to

(a) NOTE the

(i) Memorandum dated August 26, 2008 filed by Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer; and

(ii) Affidavit of Desistance executed on March 18, 2010 by Roberyn Joy M. Navarro;

(b) DISMISS the complaint against Ms. Blesila Elvyn T. Macalintal for lack of merit and in view of the above-mentioned Affidavit of Desistance; and

(c) REPRIMAND Ms. Annlyn O. Josue for having committed simple misconduct, with a WARNING that a commission of similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

We recall that this administrative case stemmed from the complaint filed by Atty. Roberyn Joy M. Navarro against respondents Josue and Blesila Elvyn T. Macalintal for Conduct Unbecoming of Court Employees. The complaint was triggered by a series of incidents where respondent Josue uttered unsavory remarks against Atty. Navarro's personal life. For her part, respondent Josue claimed that she merely retaliated against Atty. Navarro's provocative acts.

Respondent Josue presently moves that the case against her be also dismissed. She seeks reconsideration based on the Affidavit of Desistance^[1] of complainant Atty. Navarro showing that: first, the filing of the administrative case was brought by a mere misapprehension of facts; second, the reactions and counter-reactions of the parties that gave rise to the present administrative case were all made in good faith; third, respondent Josue did not commit a misdemeanor that is work-related; and fourth, the parties had already amicably settled the personal issues with each other.

We note that in the Memorandum of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, respondent Josue acknowledged that she had uttered unsavory remarks against Atty. Navarro, with a disclaimer that she never intended to malign or defame Atty. Navarro nor intended to cast disgrace on the Judiciary.

Fighting between court employees, however, is a disgraceful conduct that adversely affects the good image of the Judiciary.^[2] In this case, it did not escape us that the context to which the unsavory remarks were uttered by respondent Josue was not only in the presence of Atty. Navarro but other court employees and bystanders; the remarks as well showed the intention of respondent Josue to demean, humiliate and embarrass  Atty. Navarro. Nevertheless and even without considering her intent, what further aggravated the situation was the circumstance that her verbal attacks on Atty. Navarro were made within the court premises, in the presence and hearing of other court employees. Respondent Josue even uttered unsavory remarks against Atty. Navarro in the presence of non-court employees. Without a doubt, her actions and conduct in dealing with her personal problems brought shame not only to her, Atty. Navarro, but also tarnished the dignity and image of the Court which she represents.

In Leyrit v. Solas,^[3] we strictly enjoin propriety and decorum in the conduct of court employees, we held:

[T]he Court stressed that "the  behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility. Their conduct must be guided by strict propriety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain the public's respect for and trust in the judiciary."

High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service, where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. More so is such conduct exacted from court employees, since they have to earn and keep the public's respect for and confidence in the judicial service. This standard of conduct must apply to the court employee's dealings not only with the public, but also with their co-workers. How can court employees be expected to treat members of the public, who are mostly complete strangers to them, with respect, restraint, and civility, when they cannot accord the same treatment to one another, whom they closely work with on a daily basis?

Agents of the law should refrain from the use of language that is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. Judicial employees are expected to accord every due respect, not only to their superiors, but also to others and to their rights at all times. Their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.

Failure to observe such standards of conduct would erode the dignity and honor of the courts or lay open to suspicion the official conduct of court personnel. It bears stressing that the image of a court of justice is mirrored by the conduct, official and otherwise, of its personnel who are all bound to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in both their professional and private actuations. These norms, it should be kept in mind, are ever so essential in preserving the good name and integrity of the judiciary.

The Affidavit of Desistance executed by Atty. Navarro will not automatically result in the dismissal of the administrative case or lead to the exoneration of respondent Josue for the following reasons:^[4]

First, the resolution of administrative cases does not depend on the sudden change of mind of Atty. Navarro who is only considered a witness in this case.^[5]

Second, an affidavit of desistance cannot restrain the Court's jurisdiction to investigate and discipline erring employees, pursuant to Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

And third, the issue in an administrative case is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees have breached the norms and standards of the courts.^[6]

By her own admissions, respondent Josue showed that she failed to comply with the strict standards required of court employees. Her conduct under the circumstances no less constitutes simple misconduct amounting to unacceptable behavior that transgressed the rules of conduct demanded of employees working in the Judiciary.^[7]

ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Annlyn Ocampo Josue of the Resolution dated April 6, 2010 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit."

Endnotes:

---

[1] Dated March 18, 2010.

[2] Bondoc v. Bulosan, A.M. No. P-05-2058, June 25, 2007, 525 SCRA 459.

[3] A.M. No. P-08-2567, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 668.

[4] Jacob v. Tambo, A.M. No. P-00-1411, November 16, 2001, 369 SCRA 148, 151.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Castelo v. Florendo, A.M. No. P-96-1179, October 10, 2003, 413 SCRA 219, 229.

[7] Id. at 231.