THIRD DIVISION
REY C. MUTIA, A.M.
No. P-06-2170
Petitioner, [Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 05-2223-P]
Present:
- versus -
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
LUCILA C. PACARIEM CARPIO,
Court Stenographer III, CARPIO MORALES,
Regional Trial Court, TINGA, and
Branch 40,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
Tinga, J.:
Under consideration is the
administrative complaint filed by Rey C. Mutia (“Mutia”) charging Lucila C. Pacariem (“Pacariem”), Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court
(“RTC”), Branch 40, Manila, with grave misconduct in relation to an alleged
libelous remark made by her in a letter[1]
addressed to their Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Lyn L. Llamasares. The Presiding Judge Placido
Marquez and Executive Judge Enrico Lanzanas of the RTC Manila were each furnished with a copy
of the letter. Then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, then Court Administrator (now Supreme Court
Justice) Presbiterio Velasco, Jr., Deputy Court
Administrator (now Court Administrator) Christopher Lock, Ms. Caridad Pabello of the Court
Management Office, and the Administrative Services Division of the Office of
the Court Administrator (“OCA”) were each likewise furnished with a copy of the
letter.
It seems that the controversy sprang
from a Memorandum dated
In her letter, Pacariem
stated that their Clerk of Court and Presiding Judge signed the Daily Time
Record (“DTR”) of a new employee for the period 1-15 May 2004 even though the
employee had not yet assumed office at
that time. The pertinent portion of the
letter follows, to wit:
I am aware of the case of one new staff of this
office, that his DTR for the period of May 1-15, 2004 were signed by you and
the Presiding Judge without thinking that you were not authorized to sign it
because during that time he was not still assuming his duty, but if we are the
one requesting for the signing of DTR you would find any [sic] wrong with it.[2]
Mutia feels alluded to in the letter, as
he was the only new employee in said office at that time. Records show that he worked as Court
Interpreter III in RTC, Branch 81, Romblon before he
was transferred to RTC, Branch 40,
In her Comment,[4] Pacariem admits authorship of the letter but denies that
she was motivated by malice to destroy the good name and reputation of Mutia. She opines
that the letter is privileged, the same being a private communication between
her and the persons and authorities concerned in relation to her duties and
obligations as court stenographer. As to
the portion of her letter concerning Mutia’s DTR, she
avers that it was an honest mistake or misapprehension of facts made in good
faith and apologizes for her lapse of judgment.
In its Report,[5] the OCA made no findings as to Pacariem’s alleged grave misconduct. The OCA noted,
however, that there is an undercurrent of animosity among the three employees
that reflects adversely on the good image of the judiciary. While stressing that Pacariem
is expected to observe propriety and decorum not only to party litigants but to
her co-employees as well, the OCA urged Atty. Llamasares
to promote unity and cooperation in her office and to instill professionalism
in her subordinates. In this wise, the
OCA made the following recommendations:
Respectfully
submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations
that:
1)
respondent Lucila Pacariem be ADMONISHED
to be more circumspect in her dealings with other court employees; and
2)
the Branch Clerk
of Court having administrative supervision over court employees, be ADVISED
to promote and maintain harmony among her subordinates.[6]
We adjudicate the matter differently
from what the OCA has recommended.
Pacariem is accused of committing libel,
which allegedly is tantamount to grave misconduct. The offense of libel cannot be loosely
considered as misconduct in office. To
constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public
officer, amounting to either maladministration, or willful intentional neglect
and failure to discharge the duties of the office.[7] Although an officer may be suspended or
dismissed for malfeasance which is not related to, or connected with,
the functions of the office, such as commission of a crime, the officer may not
be proceeded against administratively based thereon until a final judgment of
conviction is rendered by a court of justice.[8] The exception is when the crime or act
committed also constitutes a violation of administrative rules; there no
conviction is required.[9]
Furthermore, in grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard
of established rule, must be manifest.[10]
It cannot be gainsaid that the issue
in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action
against the respondent, but whether the employees have breached the norms and
standards of the judiciary.[11]
While the records show that Pacariem’s statement in
her letter regarding Mutia’s DTR is in fact false, we
are not prepared to make a finding as to whether or not Pacariem
is guilty of libel inasmuch as libel per se is not an administrative
offense. Neither is it shown that a criminal complaint for libel had been filed
against her and that she had been convicted thereof so as to be the basis of a
disciplinary action against her. As to
whether her act of making such a false statement in her answer to her
superior’s memorandum amounts to grave misconduct, we rule in the
negative.
There is no showing that in writing
the subject letter, there was on Pacariem’s part
willful intentional neglect or failure to discharge her duties as court
stenographer.[12] Neither is there evidence that she profited pecuniarily from the act imputed upon her so as to consider
it corrupt. At most, it was an uncalled
for emotional outburst after knowing that her immediate superior had reported her
alleged inefficiency to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, we cannot countenance Pacariem’s imprudent and ill-suited insouciance in making
false actuations against her superiors and co-employee. After a careful perusal of the records, we
find nothing that could have provoked such a response from Pacariem. It was Atty. Llamasares’s
duty as her immediate superior to call her attention on matters affecting her
performance as court stenographer and to bring the matter to the attention of
the concerned authorities. Although we
do not have a copy of Atty. Llamasares’s memorandum,
it can be gleaned from Pacariem’s answer which
contains excerpts therefrom that the same was written
in proper and straightforward language.
While we recognize Pacariem’s right to be
heard and to explain her side, hurling invectives against an innocent
co-employee, the Clerk of Court and even the Presiding Judge, without first
verifying the facts, is completely unwarranted.
She very well knew that her statements would be read by higher
authorities that may initiate an investigation based thereon. Such a demeanor
is a failure of circumspection demanded of every public official and
employee. In Mendoza v. Buo-Rivera,[13] respondent Rivera was meted a P5,000.00
fine for conduct unbecoming a public
servant after it was found that the administrative complaint she filed against
a co-employee was based on false accusations plus the fact that she had
sown intrigues was proved by substantial
evidence. We held, thus:
Rivera’s acts of making false accusations and sowing
intrigues are acts unbecoming of a public servant. They go against the principles of public
service as solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713). Such acts rob the attention of public
employees and courts from more imperative tasks and result in undue wastage of
government resources. Such contemptible
kind of behavior must not be tolerated if we are to demand the highest degree
of excellence and professionalism among public employees and preserve the
integrity and dignity of our courts of justice.[14]
Pacariem ought to be reminded that the image
of the court as a true temple of justice is mirrored by the conduct of everyone
who works thereat, from the judge to the lowest clerk.[15]
Hence, one’s every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint,
courtesy and dignity.[16]
This norm of behavior must be observed not only when dealing with other people
but also, more importantly, when dealing with a superior. In our view, Pacariem
failed to live up to this standard. We
do note, however, that she later admitted her mistake and apologized for her
indiscretion, a matter that we believe should mitigate her administrative
liability.
Under the implementing rules of the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,[17]
any violation of the Code shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the
equivalent of six (6) months salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year,
or removal depending on the gravity of the offense. For her conduct unbecoming a court employee,
we deem a fine of P2,000.00 is appropriate.
One final note. There is on record a Reply[18]
filed by Atty. Llamasares in response to Pacariem’s answer to her memorandum. The offices that received a copy of Pacariem’s answer were also furnished a copy of Atty. Llamasares’ Reply.
Said Reply enumerates Pacariem’s alleged
infractions which, according to Atty. Llamasares,
demonstrate Pacariem’s gross misconduct and
inefficiency in the performance of her duties rendering her unfit to
continuously serve in the judiciary.[19] We thus refer the same to the OCA for
appropriate action.
WHEREFORE,
we find Lucila C. Pacariem
GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a court employee and impose on her a FINE of P2,000,
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
The Reply of Atty. Lyn L. Llamasares is REFERRED to the OCA for appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
[7]In
Re: Loss of the Records of G.R. No. 126468 Entitled Sonia Llamas-Tan v. Court
of Appeals, et. al., A.M.
No. 01-1-01-SC,
[15]Floria v. Sunga, 420 Phil. 637, 650 (2001), citing Bucatcat v. Bucatcat, 323
SCRA 578, 588.
[17]Rules
Implementing the Code of Conduct and ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, Rule XI, Section
1.