[A.M. No. P-00-1414. July 31, 2000]

FELICITAS M. ALIVIA, vs. CARLOS P. MANARANG

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 31 2000.

A.M. No. P-00-1414 (Felicitas M. Alivia, vs. Carlos P. Manarang, Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Ilagan, Isabela.)

In an Affidavit-Complaint dated August 3, 1998, complainant Felicitas M. Alivia, a process server of the Municipal Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, charged respondent Carlos P. Manarang, Clerk II of the Municipal Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service for repeatedly shouting invectives at her and boxing her face.

Complainant narrated that on July 29, 1998 at around 10:00 A.M., while inside the office, she informed respondent that the records of one case were missing. In response, respondent berated her, "Tanga ka", "Bullshit ka!" Thereafter, it was discovered that the records were borrowed by a lawyer from the Public Attorney's Office. However, respondent continued ranting at complainant, repeatedly saying "Tanga ka ", "Bullshit ka", and "What a loss because you had big eyes to see" in Ybanag. Suddenly, respondent approached complainant's table and boxed her face, resulting in a contusion on the right side of her face. Not satisfied, respondent tried to slap her but she avoided it. In return, complainant hit him with a stapler. Respondent shouted "Vulva of your mother, you are fighting a man..." To this complainant replied, "It depends if someone is hurting me of course." and added, "You are quarrelsome, you quarrel with everybody and now you quarrel with me. So I am fighting back. Nobody, not even my husband hit me. So I will file an administrative case against you in order to teach you a lesson because you are not afraid." Thereafter, their officemates pacified them.

In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent denied the accusations, and claimed that when he learned that the records of the case were borrowed without his knowledge, he merely said "oh, bullshit" to no one in particular.

In an Affidavit of Desistance dated March 12, 1999, complainant prayed for the dismissal of the case contending that after much soul-searching, she realized that what transpired was a result of a simple misunderstanding, and she is withdrawing the case for the best interest of the service in order to restore harmony in their office.

In its memorandum, the Office of the Court Administrator observed that while complainant prayed for the dismissal of the case to restore the harmony in the office, she did not recant the facts stated in her affidavit-complaint. Thus, the OCA recommended that respondent should still be sanctioned administratively despite the desistance of complainant. Further, the OCA stated that respondent's denial cannot overcome the medical certificate and picture showing the injury sustained by complainant after respondent boxed her. Denial, like alibi, cannot overcome positive assertions supported by collateral evidence.

In Quiroz v. Orfila, complainant, who was a court stenographer and respondent, who was a court aide, engaged in a fight during office hours within the office premises. Complainant alleged that she sustained scratches on her face and that respondent was selling snacks inside the office. The Investigating Judge recommended that respondent be reprimanded for committing the light offense. However, the OCA recommended a graver penalty - that both complainant and respondent be fined P 1,000.00 each for discourtesy and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for respondent's unauthorized private business. We further admonished in Quiroz that -

"Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. 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. Such conduct is exacted from them so that they will earn and keep the public's respect for and confidence in the judicial service. This standard is applied with respect to 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 quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts.

Fighting between court employees during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. It displays a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and dignity with which court business should be treated. Shouting at one another in the workplace and during office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers, but to the court as well. The behavior of the parties was totally unbecoming members of the judicial service. Such conduct cannot be countenanced."

In this case, the records clearly show that respondent perpetrated an attack on a female co-employee during office hours. Hence, in addition to the recommendation of the OCA that respondent be reprimanded, we find it proper to impose upon respondent a fine of P1,000.00.

To be sure, we are cognizant of complainant's desire to withdraw her complaint, for the sake of peace and harmony in the office. But, as observed by the OCA, she did not recant what she said in her Affidavit-Complaint. Thus, despite said withdrawal by complainant, we are constrained to penalize respondent's violent conduct, which is unbecoming a public officer and a gentleman. In Dionisio v. Gilera, A.M. No. P-99-1330, August 12, 1999, we said:

"We agree with the OCA that administrative sanctions should be imposed on the erring court employees. Despite their desistance and subsequent reconciliation, they should nonetheless be disciplined. The overriding need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary demands that erring personnel be sanctioned, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the Complaints. (citing Estreller v. Manatad, Jr. 268 SCRA 608 (1997); Lledo v. Lledo, A.M. No. P.95-1157, December 21, 1998). Indeed, these proceedings do not depend on the whim and caprice of the concerned employees, for the aggrieved party is the court system. The issue in administrative cases 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 judiciary. Clearly, this Court has the duty to root out misconduct among its employees, regardless of the parties' desistance."

As held recently in Case�ares v. Almeida, Jr. A.M. No. P-00-1359, February 2, 2000:

"With regard to the withdrawal of the complaint, we agree with the Court Administrator that this does not have the legal effect of exonerating the respondent from administrative disciplinary action. A complaint for misconduct and similar charges against a judicial or other public officer or employee cannot just be withdrawn at any time by the simple expediency of the complainant suddenly claiming a change of mind. (See Estreller v. Manatad, Jr., 268 SCRA 608, 616 (1997). To rule otherwise would subvert fair and prompt administration of justice as well as undermine the discipline of court personnel."

WHEREFORE, respondent Carlos P. Manarang, Clerk II of the Municipal Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, is hereby REPRIMANDED and FINED One Thousand Pesos for discourtesy and misconduct in office. He is also warned that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com