SECOND DIVISION
JUDGE
CRISPIN B. BRAVO, A.M. No. P-05-1950
Complainant,
(Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1898-P)
- versus -
ATTY. MIGUEL C.
MORALES,
Branch Clerk of Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 17 (now detailed
with OCC), Manila,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x
ATTY. MIGUEL C. MORALES, A.M. No. MTJ-1612
Complainant, (Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1571-MTJ)
Present:
- versus - PUNO, J., Chairperson, SALVADOR-GUTIERREZ,
JUDGE CRISPIN B. BRAVO, AZCUNA, and
Presiding
Judge, Metropolitan GARCIA, JJ.
Trial
Court, Branch 16,
Respondent. Promulgated:
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
R
E S O L U T I O N
GARCIA, J.:
These consolidated administrative cases which
are in the nature of a charge
and countercharge sprang from
the same incident.
In
A.M. No. P-05-1950, Judge
Crispin B. Bravo, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
In his
complaint in A.M. No. P-05-1950,
Judge Bravo alleged, in gist, the following:
1.
That while serving as the Acting
Presiding Judge of MeTC, Manila, Branch 17, he requested the detail of his branch
clerk of court, Atty. Morales, to the OCC, MeTC,
2.
That since he made the recommendation, he
observed Atty. Morales to have acted discourteously and disrespectful toward him.
He relates that whenever he greets court employees with a "good morning ladies and gentlemen" after every flag raising
ceremony, as was his usual practice, he noticed Atty. Morales mimicking him in
a squeaky comical voice, obviously to make fun of him;
3.
That in the morning of March 22, 2004, before the start of the flag raising rite at
the old MWSS Building in Arroceros, Manila he caught Atty. Morales about to do
his mocking imitating act, prompting him to tell the latter "tumigil ka"; that he then ordered one of the security
guards to arrest Atty. Morales preparatory to charging him with unjust vexation;
4.
That
so as not to exacerbate an embarrassing situation, he waited for the flag
raising ceremony to end before apologizing to the crowd for the incident, only
to witness Atty. Morales responding with
a shout: "sa akin hindi ka
mag-aapology”(sic)[1]
5.
That he ignored Atty. Morales’ outburst and instead instructed
the Officer-in-Charge of the security guards to call the Manila City Hall
Police Detachment, which immediately dispatched PO3 Pacifico Wong and PO2 Jose
Rancho; that he briefed both police officers regarding the flag-raising
ceremony incident and about the preceding
exchange of charges and counter-charges filed with the OCA
6.
That no arrest was effected on that day
owing to the intervention of MeTC Executive Judge Myra G. Fernandez and 2nd
Vice Executive Judge Tingaraan Guiling who instructed the police officers to
maintain the status quo; and
7.
That Atty. Morales’ sympathizers
circulated a manifesto[2] on that same day denouncing
his act as a judge and soliciting support for Atty. Morales from the
At his end, Atty.
Morales avers in his counter-complaint that Judge Bravo failed to behave with due
restraint when the judge ordered his arrest.
As Atty. Morales argued, unjust vexation is covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure, adding that unjust vexation is not a continuing offense and,
ergo, a warrantless arrest could not
be effected therefor, let alone by the responding police officers who have no
personal knowledge, as it were, of the alleged crime.
Upon the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA’s) recommendation, both cases were re-docketed as a
regular administrative matter.
Pursuant to a
Resolution of the Court dated
In its
report, the OCA recommended that Judge Bravo be reprimanded for abuse of
authority and Atty. Morales be fined in the amount of P2,000.00 for conduct unbecoming a government officer.
We find the
recommendations of the OCA and the premises holding them together to be well-taken.
At bottom is
the sad spectacle of two officials of the judiciary wasting the precious hours of the Court,
including theirs, that could have otherwise been devoted
to a more salutary productive judicial pursuit
rather than on petty wrangling
that has no place in
the judicial system. They ought to be reminded that the nature and
responsibilities of the men and women in the judiciary, as defined in different
canons of conduct, are neither mere
rhetorical words nor idealistic sentiments but working standards and attainable
goals to be matched with actual deeds.[3] The Court has repeatedly stressed that court
employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public
servants charged with dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree
of professionalism and responsibility, if not maturity. Their conduct must not
only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance
with law and court regulations. They
should avoid any act or conduct that would or tend to diminish public trust and
confidence in the courts. Indeed, those
connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of
responsibility. [4]
An examination
of the records of these consolidated cases reveals an undeniable pervasive
atmosphere of animosity between Judge Bravo and Atty. Morales as evidenced by a
number of administrative cases
filed by one against the other. In fact,
there are six additional administrative cases filed by Atty. Morales against
Judge Bravo,[5]
while there are three more administrative cases filed by the latter against the
former.[6] With the strained relations between the two,
it was not inconceivable for Atty. Morales to make fun of Judge Bravo in front
of court employees by mimicking the latter, making the greeting in a squeaky
comical voice, and for Judge Bravo to retaliate instantaneously by ordering the
arrest of his erring subordinate even before a criminal suit is instituted.
On the charge
that Judge Bravo abused his authority, the Court agrees with the inculpatory findings
of the OCA. Judge Bravo indeed overstepped
the bounds of his authority when he ordered the arrest of Atty. Morales on the
basis of a mere intent to sue the latter later for unjust vexation. Being a dispenser of justice, it behooves Judge
Bravo to observe the same rules of due process in dealing with his
subordinates. He should have confined
himself to filing an administrative complaint or a criminal one and let the
wheels of justice run its course. To be
sure, Judge Bravo's actuation was unbecoming a judge who, needless to stress, is
expected to exercise proper restraint and civility in dealing even with insolent
subordinates.
We feel,
however, that Judge Bravo’s actuation in
the premises does not amount to grave abuse of authority, as urged by Atty.
Morales. Provoked as the judge was by Atty. Morales’ insulting conduct, the
judge, like any other normal person, must have been carried away by his
emotion. Even then, his conduct as a judge is not totally excusable. To paraphrase
what we said earlier, a judge, even in the face of boorish behavior from those
he deals with, ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a
high officer of the court.
The Court, to
be sure, has taken stock of the fact that all but three members of the MeTC Clerk
of Court circle refused to rally behind Atty. Morales in his tiff with Judge
Bravo, indicating doubtless that the cumulative effect of his provocative remarks
and actions against the judge were what triggered the unfortunate
The foregoing
notwithstanding, some form of sanction should still be imposed on Judge Bravo,
reacting as he did in a manner disproportionate to what Atty. Morales had done,
however wrong they might have been. There being no showing, however, that Judge
Bravo had been previously charged with and found guilty of the same or similar
administrative offense, a reprimand with
a warning appears proper.
We
likewise agree with the OCA’s finding on Atty. Morales’ guilt for conduct
unbecoming a government employee. His insulting act of mimicking the judge, in
the presence of other court employees, a gesture calculated to ridicule, is a
behavior unexpected of one in the judicial service. The ideal is for a court
employee to be well-mannered, civil, and considerate in his actuations, more
particularly with respect to his relation to the presiding judge he is assigned
under. Here, Atty. Morales' acts went
against the principles of public service and such unpleasant kind of behavior
must not be tolerated if we are to demand the highest degree of excellence and
professionalism among public employees and to preserve the integrity and
dignity of our courts of justice. He failed to live up to the norms of conduct
demanded of his position.
We take
this opportunity to remind both Judge Bravo and Atty. Morales that government
service is people-oriented. Patience is an essential part of dispensing
justice; civility is never a sign of weakness and courtesy is a mark of culture
and good breeding. Impatience and rudeness have no place in the government
service in which personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility
at all times.[7]
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves to:
(a)
REPRIMAND
Judge Crispin B. Bravo, Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch
16,
(b)
Impose a FINE
on Atty. Miguel C. Morales of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, Manila, in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for
conduct unbecoming a public officer.
Both are hereby STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO
C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
(ON LEAVE)
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo
of A.M. No. P-05-1950, p. 2.
[2]
[3] Sy v. Norberte, 391 Phil. 657,
664(2000), citing Marasigan v. Buena,
348 Phil. 1, 10 (1998).
[4] A.M.
No. 03-3-179-RTC, January 26, 2005, 449 SCRA 278, 283, withholding of the
Salary and Benefits of Michael A. Latiza, Court Aide,
RTC-Br. 14,
[5] 1) OCA IPI No. 02-1335-MTJ
for grave coercion, grave threat, allowing court employee to make
decision, falsification of DTR, grave misconduct, inefficiency.
2) OCA IPI No. 03-1373-MTJ for libel, grave
misconduct.
3) OCA IPI No. 03-1374-MTJ for falsifying
minutes of the proceedings.
4) OCA IPI No. 03-1384-MTJ for neglect to act
of official request.
5) OCA IPI No. 03-1385-MTJ for falsification
of DTR.
6) OCA IPI
No. 04-1525-MTJ for malversation, infidelity in the custody of court records, dereliction of duties, grave misconduct.