425 Phil. 603
Although we do not expect respondent to be error-free in typing court orders, decisions, writs and warrants, neither do we want her to render below par performance in her works. She should have had the initiative to learn the forms of different court orders, decisions, writs and warrants to minimize if not eliminate errors in typing.The Court agrees with the OCA that respondent is culpable. Indeed, respondent has all but admitted the wrongdoing complained of when she stated, inter alia, in her Comment –
Time and again the Supreme Court has emphasized that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. To be sure the wheels of justice will not run without cooperation of the staff of judges composed of clerks of court, staff assistants, legal researchers, sheriffs, process servers, court stenographers, interpreters, bailiffs, court aides and utility workers.
(4) That the exhibits submitted to your Office are Orders of the then judges (retired and returned to regular station) typewritten by me showing an error in the margin. These, however, have been accordingly corrected x x x;While indeed respondent may have “corrected” and “remedied” her mistakes and shortcomings, it must be stressed that the requisite competence and efficiency is not confined to those isolated instances pointed out by complainant but is a continuous obligation demanded of her for so long as she serves in the judiciary. The Court has consistently held that the nature of work of those connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
(5) All the shortcomings, mistakes done in good faith have been remedied, such as the calendaring of civil cases which are already assigned to me, the preparation of monthly reports and other typing work.
Since the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness. It bears stressing once again that public service requires utmost integrity and the strictest discipline possible of every public servant. A public office is a public trust that enjoins all public officers and employees, particularly those serving in the judiciary to respond to the highest degree of dedication often even beyond personal interest.In OCA v. Sheriff IV Julius G. Cabe, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar, the Court said:
Time and again, we have emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility which court personnel are saddled with in view of their exalted positions as keepers of the public faith. They must be constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. As we have held in the case of Mendoza v. Mabutas, this Court condemns and would never countenance such conduct, act or omission on the part of the all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.In the light of the prevailing facts of the case, the Court deems the fine recommended by the OCA commensurate to respondent’s malfeasance.