EN BANC
[A.M. No. 99-10-10-SC. November 29, 1999]
Re: Disciplinary Action against Antonio Lamano, Jr., of the Judgment Division, Supreme Court
R E S O L U T I O N
GONZAGA_REYES,
J.:
Before us is an
Affidavit-Complaint filed by Valeriana Almojuela, Property Division of the
Court of Appeals against Antonio Lamano, Jr. of the Judgment Division of the
Supreme Court for misconduct. The
complaint states that at about 7:30 in the morning of March 5, 1999 while she
was in line at the Supreme Court canteen she felt somebody from behind insert a
finger in between her buttocks which reached her intimate part. When she turned to see who it was she saw
the respondent. She berated him and he
immediately apologized. The complainant
stated that instead of feeling remorse the respondent while eating kept
laughing and occasionally looked her way and that even after the day of the
incident the respondent continued to tell his friends about it causing more
pain and humiliation to the complainant.
The respondent filed
Answer to the Complaint and states that it was a case of mistaken
identity. He only wanted to play a
prank on his friend Carlo of the Judicial Records Office of the Supreme Court
who looked like the complainant from behind.
Respondent alleges that he
touched or squeezed but not fingered the complainant’s buttocks and that when
he saw that the person he touched was not his friend Carlo but the complainant
he immediately apologized. Respondent
denies spreading gossip about the incident.
A friend of the
respondent, Rodolfo Reboredo, who was present at the scene of the incident
stated in his affidavit:
“At nasaksihan ko na inakbayan niya (Lumano, Jr) ang nasabing nakasuot ng striped na T-shirt at maong na pantalon. Sa pag-aakala ko na kilala niya iyon hindi ko ito binigyan ng pansin, at laking gulat ko na lamang ang malakas na pagpapaumanhin ni Antonio Lamano na sabi ay “sorry po ma’am, hindi ko po sinasadya, inaamin ko na nagkamali po ako, sorry po talaga.” Nang matapos ang argumento kami ay naupo na sa hapag kainan kasama si G. Otillo Pamittan, at si Antonio ay nakayukong umiiling-iling at natatawa sa kanyang sarili. Tinanong ko kung ano ang ginawa niya at ang sabi niya ay “pare, nagkamali ako, ang akala ko si Carlo yong babae, sinundot ko iyong puwet”
In her Reply complainant
reiterated that respondent inserted his finger in between her buttocks as he
admitted to Rodolfo Reboredo immediately after the incident. Complainant insists that she does not look
even remotely similar to Carlo of the Judicial Records Office. She further states that even assuming that
it was a case of mistaken identity the respondent should be held responsible
for his acts which caused gross embarrassment to the complainant.
The Complaints and
Investigation Division of this Court filed memorandum finding the respondent
guilty of simple misconduct and recommends the imposition of a fine equivalent
to his two weeks salary with stern warning that a repetition of the same act
will be dealt with more severely. The
investigating attorney found the respondent’s defense of mistaken identity
untenable and stated that the act committed by the respondent by itself falls
short of the highest degree of propriety and decorum required of government
employees.
The recommendation of the
Complaints and Investigation Division is well-taken.
Government officials and
employees, more specifically those employed in the Judiciary, are bound by the
highest standards of propriety and decorum to maintain the people’s respect and
faith in the Judiciary.[1] Such dictates apply not only between the
said personnel and the public but among co-workers as well.[2] Any transgression or deviation from the
established norm of conduct, work related or not, amounts to a misconduct. Any scandalous behavior or any act that may
erode the people’s high esteem for the Judiciary is considered an act unbecoming
an employee of the Judiciary.[3]
The affidavit of
respondent’s own witness supports the complainant’s allegation that the
respondent inserted his finger in between her buttocks which reached her
private part. The act committed by the
respondent in a public place is grossly humiliating to the complainant and such
conduct cannot be condoned. Although
malice was not sufficiently established the act committed exhibited a serious
lack of proper decorum which is required of every employee. The act is lewd and rude and no excuse e.g.
mistaken identity, can convince this Court to dismiss such conduct as an
unfortunate incident. The complainant’s
allegation that the respondent spread gossip about the incident is not
supported by evidence.
WHEREFORE, respondent is found guilty of simple
misconduct and imposed a fine equivalent to his two weeks salary.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., agrees with J. Mendoza that respondent should only be guilty of simple
misconduct and an admonition or reprimand at most should be imposed.
Kapunan, J., joins J. Mendoza in his opinion that respondent is guilty of simple
misconduct so that reprimand should suffice.
Mendoza, J., believes Antonio Lamano,
Jr. is guilty of simple misconduct for which REPRIMAND should be
sufficient. He, therefore, so vote.