SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-99-1357.
September 4, 2001]
SHERWIN M. BALOLOY, complainant, vs. JOSE B. FLORES, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
On April 28, 1998, Sherwin M.
Baloloy, process server of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch
130, charged with misconduct Jose B. Flores, legal researcher at Branch 120 of
the same court.
In his complaint-affidavit filed
in the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), complainant alleged that as he
was going back to his office after delivering court documents, he noticed
respondent sitting on a bench, staring menacingly at him. Without any warning, respondent stood up and
boxed him several times in the face. To
avoid further harm, complainant ran towards room 315 and once he was inside,
the secretary therein locked the door.
Respondent pursued him and started kicking and banging at the door, all
the while shouting invectives at him.
Respondent left after apparently sensing the alarm he was causing.[1]
A few minutes after respondent
left, complainant left room 315 accompanied by a friend named Demet. They went to respondent’s office to report
the incident to respondent’s superior.
When they got there, however, they saw respondent holding a screwdriver,
provoking them to fight. The branch
clerk of court intervened and requested Demet to take complainant to the
hospital.[2]
Attached to complainant’s
affidavit was a medical certificate issued on April 13, 1998, showing that he
suffered a “lacerated wound 1 cm glabella; infraorbital (R);” and a “contusion
(at the) bridge of (his) nose; supraorbital (R).”[3] Also attached to the affidavit was a photocopy of
three pictures taken of complainant’s face after the incident.[4]
In his answer, respondent gave a
different account of the incident. He
denied initiating the fracas and instead pointed at complainant as the one who
started it. Respondent claims that on
that day, he met complainant at the corridor.
He asked complainant, “Bakit mo ba ako laging pinagtritripan?”
(Why are you always picking on me?) To
this complainant replied, “Tangina mo! Anong pinagtritripan?” (Son of a
bitch! What do you mean picking on you?)
According to respondent, complainant raised a clenched fist as if to
strike respondent “but he was beaten to the punch.” Respondent stated that
complainant kicked him on the thigh, barely missing his genitals. Respondent retaliated with a punch, then
went back to his office. He left
complainant in the corridor, standing with his back against the wall.[5]
Respondent denied that he was
brandishing a screwdriver when complainant went to respondent’s office with a
male companion. According to
respondent, complainant’s companion rushed to him and confronted him. Respondent explained to him that complainant
had been touching his private part.
When asked by his companion, complainant replied, “Nababangga ko lang
naman minsan eh.” (I accidentally hit it sometimes.) Complainant and his companion then left for
the hospital. Complainant’s parents
also talked to respondent and asked him to settle the matter.[6]
Respondent claimed that
complainant began harassing him in 1996 by touching his private part whenever the
two of them passed each other. He
stated that he tried to stop complainant by telling him that he resented what
complainant was doing, but to no avail.
The more respondent tried to avoid him, the more he harassed
respondent. Respondent narrated that
several days before the incident complained of in this case, while respondent
was talking to a man asking for directions, complainant once again grabbed
respondent’s private part, squeezed it, and left. Respondent was unable to react because of shock; he could not
even remember if he was able to give the other man directions.[7]
Respondent thought of asking for
advice from several persons regarding this matter, but ultimately decided
against it for fear that he might be ridiculed.
Respondent prayed that the
complaint be dismissed and that complainant’s actions be “condemned”.[8]
On February 1, 1999, the Court
referred this matter to Executive Judge Bayani S. Rivera, RTC, Caloocan City,
for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Judge Rivera’s report and recommendation
were received on April 26, 1999. Judge
Rivera found respondent to be the aggressor in this case, having been the one
who first confronted complainant by asking him why he was picking on
respondent. According to Judge Rivera,
respondent’s question was a threat against complainant. Respondent appeared determined to assault
complainant. Judge Rivera stated that
respondent’s act was unjustified and ran counter to the norms of conduct set
forth in Section 4 (c) of R.A. No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees,[9] and Section 46(b)(4) of Book V of the Administrative
Code.[10] Accordingly, Judge Rivera recommended that respondent
be declared guilty of gross misconduct and suspended from the service for six months
without pay.
On June 16, 1999, we referred this
matter further to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In a memorandum dated October 27, 1999, the
OCA opined that the interest of the service would best be served if both
complainant and respondent were administratively punished. The OCA noted that the root cause of the
problem was complainant’s touching respondent’s private part on several
occasions, a fact which complainant did not deny during the investigation
conducted by Judge Rivera. Such act of
complainant was unbecoming a court employee and fell short of the
professionalism required of the personnel of the judiciary. On the other hand, respondent’s punching the
complainant, during office hours and in the court premises, constituted
misconduct that should not go unpunished.
The OCA recommended that both complainant and respondent be fined
P5,000.00 each for gross misconduct, with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
We agree with both Judge Rivera
and the OCA that respondent should be penalized for hitting complainant. We further agree with the OCA that
complainant must also be disciplined.
While respondent admits having hit
complainant, the latter is not without fault.
It appears that respondent’s counter-charge that complainant had
harassed and pushed respondent’s patience to the limit has substantial
basis. By repeatedly touching
respondent’s private part, complainant committed an act of harassment, if not
perversion, that goes against the norm of conduct expected of an employee of
the judiciary.
We have time and again emphasized
that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with
the administration of justice must at all times be characterized by propriety
and decorum. The Court will not
tolerate misconduct committed by court personnel, particularly during office
hours and within court premises. Such
misconduct shows a total lack of respect for the court, and erodes the good
image of the judiciary in the eyes of the public.
Both complainant and respondent
have fallen short of the standard of conduct required of court employees. Fighting with each other during working
hours shows disrespect not only of co-workers but also of the court.[11]
x x x
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.[12]
x x x
The OCA recommended that both
complainant and respondent be fined P5,000.00.
However, under the circumstances, we believe that a fine of P1,000.00
each will be sufficient.[13]
WHEREFORE, we find both Sherwin M. Baloloy, process server, RTC,
Branch 130, Caloocan City, and Jose B. Flores, legal researcher, RTC, Branch
120, Caloocan City, both GUILTY of misconduct.
Each of them is FINED P1,000.00, with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza,
and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Buena, J., no part.
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Id. at 3.
[4] Id. at 4.
[5] Id. at 7.
[6] Id. at 8.
[7] Id. at 9.
[8] Ibid.
[9] SEC.
4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials
and Employees. -- xxx
(c) Justness
and sincerity. -- …They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and
shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety, and public interest.…
[10] SEC. 46.
Discipline: General Provisions. -- (a) No Officer or employee in
the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided
by law and after due process.
(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
x x x
(4) Misconduct
x x x
[11] Quiroz v. Orfila,
272 SCRA 324, 330 (1997).
[12] Id. at 331.
[13] Id. at 332.