524 Phil. 71
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
"Ang kapal ng mukha mo, walang patawad, kahit mahal na araw, may nakakita sa inyo sa loob na taga-OCC. Hindi ka man mabuking ngayon, sa ibang araw, nabubuking [sic] ka rin"; "If you want bastusan, I'll give it to you. Sabi ko kay Lloyd, pagbigyan ka ng isang gabi, kaya yan ang dahilan you are mad at me"; "Duwag ka naman eh"[;] "putang ina mo"[;] etc.[7]A confrontation between the two occurred in March 2003 which was witnessed by Mary Jane Rodillas, a canteen helper, and one Noemi Feje.
The foregoing account was substantially corroborated at the witness stand by Mary Jane Rodillas.[9]
ATTY. LEE: In that incident which happened sometime in March 2003, what happened? WITNESS [complainant]: I was eating, I did not see her coming. It was 2:00 in the afternoon when she arrived and Noemi said, "here she comes. Isn't she your enemy�" ATTY. LEE: What happened after that? WITNESS: She passed by my side and then she was making ismid [sic]. ATTY. LEE: What happened after that? WITNESS: I turned to her and asked what is her problem. ATTY. LEE: What did she say in return? WITNESS: She suddenly gave me a middle finger sign. ATTY. LEE: What did you do after having seen that she did that making finger sign? WITNESS: I don't understand what that meant. Sir. ATTY. LEE: Any reaction from that finger sign that the respondent did? WITNESS: I asked my companion what is it mean [sic]. ATTY. LEE: What did your companion say? WITNESS: She said, "Later, because you might run after her when you find out what that means." ATTY. LEE: After that, what happened? WITNESS: She stopped at the far end of the canteen and stayed there and she was still making the middle finger sign and she was challenging me. ATTY. LEE: You said that she was wearing something? ATTY. LEE: No question yet, your Honor. WITNESS: Yes, sir, uniform. ATTY. LEE: What was the uniform being worn by the respondent at that time? WITNESS: Yellow-green blouse and fatigue-like pants.[8]
In her Affidavit-Complaint, complainant claimed that respondent shouted "fuck you" and made a "dirty middle finger sign" at her. This claim was corroborated by Mary Jane Rodillas and Noemi Feje in their respective affidavits.
- x x x What really transpired is: I came from METROBANK and when I passed by the canteen near the Mandaluyong Gymnasium, I did not notice the complainant until I heard shouts from her "ANONG PROBLEMA MO" etc. and also shouted "SHERYLL MANIAC". And this did not happen in the office but near the canteen beside the Mandaluyong Gymnasium. Calling me SHERYLL MANIAC is a very serious insult and an attack on my person and personality, since I am a lady, single of 24 years of age, and don't belong to the category she branded me as "MANIAC."[10](Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied).
Q [Atty. Floirendo]- Madam witness, in your counter affidavit, paragraph 9, you stated that, and if I may quote your honor please, x x x Do you confirm and affirm the truth and veracity of this paragraph?In her Investigation Report,[12] Judge Acosta-Villarante found as follows:
A - Yes ma'am.
Atty. Floirendo - You mean to say madam witness that it was the complainant who shouted to you first when you saw her near the Mandaluyong Gymnasium on the date she complained of?
A - Yes ma'am.[11]
Respondent Madlangbayan was charged for Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming a Government Employee.Thus finding for complainant, Judge Acosta-Villarante recommended that respondent be only reprimanded as this is the first offense that she committed and that her actuations were "anchored on legitimate demands."[14]Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose (Words and Phrases, Vol. 27, page 466, citing Sewell vs. Sharp, LA APP. 102 So 2d 259, 261).From the evidence presented, complainant, through [sic] nervous, and her witness Mary Jane Rodillas, a canteen helper, testified in a candid and straightforward manner indicating sincerity and truthfulness. The Investigating Presiding Judge is persuaded that a confrontation between complainant and respondent did in fact occur. As claimed by respondent, she came from METROBANK and passed by the canteen. Mary Jane Rodillas testified that the time is 2:30 in the afternoon which respondent failed to deny.
It should be stressed that respondent has been nursing grudge/hatred against complainant by reason of the latter's non-payment of her balance in the credit card and her refusal to return the downpayment on the bracelet despite insistent demands by respondent. What is more, the irreconcilable differences had reached such a magnitude to the extent that respondent reported this matter to her parents who called complainant to pay her indebtedness but complainant allegedly invented stories to respondent's parents by saying, "Sinabihan ako ng anak niyo na walang hiya kayong magulang niya, etc." which caused the ire of respondent.
The Investigating Presiding Judge finds credible the allegation of complainant that respondent had been sending embarrassing text messages to harass complainant who appears adamant to the respondent's demands.
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any kind of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals, inorder to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.
Under the given facts, the unprofessional conduct of respondent as court employee could bring the court into disrepute.[13] (Emphasis and underlining in the original; underscoring supplied).
Even if respondent has legitimate demands against complainant, it is still improper for a court employee to make offensive and foul remarks. 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. Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts.This Court finds Justice Velasco's position well-taken.
However, the fact that this is respondent's first offense is considered a mitigating circumstance in her favor. A fine of P1,000.00 is therefore recommended.[16]
We take this opportunity to remind, not only the respondent, but all court personnel as well, that the image of the judiciary is mirrored in the kind of conduct, official or otherwise, which the personnel within its employ display, from the judge to the lowest clerk. Any fighting or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. Thus, all employees are required to preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[18] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied).Disgraceful conduct is classified as a grave offense under Section 52(A) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which is punishable by suspension of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day to One (1) Year for the first offense.