ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 01-1163-P.September 12, 2001]

RE: ROSALINA DOMINGO vs. CUNTAPAY

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 12 2001.

A.M OCA I.PI. No. 01-1163-P (RE: Rosalina Domingo vs. Jacinto Cuntapay, Deputy Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City for Gross Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty.)

In a complaint 1 Rollo, p. 1. dated March 7, 2000, Rosalina Domingo charged Deputy Sheriff Jacinto Cuntapay, Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City with gross neglect of duty relative to Civil Case No 4636 entitled "Melania del Rosario Vda de Domingo, et al vs. Renato Martin, et al."

Complainant is the sister in law of Melania Del Rosario Vda. de Domingo, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 4636. Complainant alleged that due to unreasonable delay of five (5) years in the implementation of the writ of execution, Melania del Rosario asked her to follow up the case with respondent sheriff. Respondent, instead of explaining the court processes, shouted at the complainant, saying she had no business in following up the case and that he was not the person to implement the writ. Respondent said it was a pity that she was a teacher yet she did not know what she was doing The incident witnessed by spectators caused her undue embarrassment.

On his part, respondent alleged that the complainant was first to flare up and started shouting at him when he informed her that the implementation of the writ had long been terminated and since she was not a party to the case no official notification was given her He was also embarrassed when complainant shouted at him in the presence of his officemates and other people.

In his comment, respondent stated that Melania del Rosario had no interest in filing a complaint against respondent and that she knew the complainant to be a very temperamental person. Melania del Rosario also stated that the judgment has been satisfied except for the portion awarding damages.

We find complainant's allegations not substantiated and satisfactorily explained by respondent. However, we remind respondent that public officers and employees are expected to conduct themselves not only with propriety and decorum but, above all else, above suspicion. 2 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Yambao, 221 SCRA 77, 86 [1993]; Del Rosario vs. Bascar, Jr., 206 SCRA 678 [1992]; and Callejo, Jr. vs. Garcia, 206 SCRA 491, 496 [1992].

Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. 3 Manuel vs. Judge Calimag, 307 SCRA 657 [1999]; Flores vs. Caniya, 256 SCRA 518 [1996]; Basco vs. Gregorio, 245 SCRA 14 [1995]; Anonymous vs. Geverola, 279 SCRA 279 [1997]. They are public officers who are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform the duties of their offices honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability. Thus, they are also bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of their official duties. 4 Spouses Pecson vs. Sicat, 298 SCRA 122 [1998].

In Quiroz vs Orfila, 5 272 SCRA 324 [1997]. we said that shouting at each other within court premises and quarreling during working hours exhibit discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers but to the court as well. Such behavior is contrary to the ethical conduct demanded by Republic Act No 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."

Under the Civil Service Rules, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service is a grave offense punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year. 6 Section 23(t), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws. Simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. 7 Section 23, (b) on less grave offenses, Ibid.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. 8 Quiroz vs. Orfila, Supra. citing Office of Court Administrator vs. Bucoy, 235 SCRA 588, 595, [1994]; and Amosco vs. Magro, 73 SCRA 107, 108-109 [1976]. High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service 9 Poco-Deslate vs. Mendoza-Arce, 318 SCRA 465 [1999]. where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. 10 Ibid, citing Policarpio vs. Fortus, 248 SCRA 272, 275, [1995]; and Flores vs. Ganadar, 61 SCRA 430 [1974]. Such conduct is exacted; from them so that they will earn and keep the public's respect for and confidence in the judicial service. 11 Ibid. citing Tablete vs. Seechung, 234 SCRA 161, 167 [1994].

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, respondent Jacinto Cuntapay is REMINDED to observe propriety and decorum at all times and circumstances.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

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