THIRD DIVISION
|
LEILANI· E. NACIONALES, Complainant, - versus - SHERYLL S.
MADLANGBAYAN, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. P-06-2171 [Formerly
OCA IPI No. 03-1661-P] Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Leilani Nacionales (complainant) has,
by Affidavit-Complaint,[1]
charged Sheryll S. Madlangbayan (respondent), Clerk III of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong, Branch 210, of Misconduct, Conduct Unbecoming of
Government Employee and Unethical Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
Service.
The complaint was eventually
investigated by RTC Mandaluyong Executive Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante.
Complainant was engaged in the
business of selling jewelry and underwear.
Respondent was one of her customers who eventually became her close friend.[2]
On November 14, 2002, complainant
purchased a pair of shoes and a bag at a store in Greenhills, San Juan for a
total amount of P8,198, payment for which complainant charged to respondent’s
BPI Credit Card account.[3]
The two agreed that complainant would pay respondent the total amount on
installment basis.
On P8,500, on a staggered payment basis
with a downpayment of P3,000. When
the bracelet was appraised in the presence of complainant on
Respondent thus decided to return the
bracelet to complainant and to demand the return of her P3,000 downpayment.
By respondent’s claim, complainant agreed
to refund the P3,000 after the
latter could find a buyer of the bracelet.[4]
Also by respondent’s claim, she demanded
the settlement of the amount of P2,050
representing the balance of the payment of complainant’s pair of shoes and bag
which, as earlier stated, was charged to her (respondent’s) credit card account[5]
but complainant refused to comply therewith unless she (respondent) first issued
a receipt of her previous payment.[6]
The friendship of the two soured and respondent
allegedly sent text messages to complainant which contained slanderous words
meant to harass, ridicule and embarrass her:
“Ang kapal ng mukha mo, walang patawad, kahit mahal na araw, may nakakita sa inyo sa loob na taga-OCC. Hindi ka man mabuking ngayon, sa ibang araw, nabubuking [sic] ka rin”; “If you want bastusan, I’ll give it to you. Sabi ko kay Lloyd, pagbigyan ka ng isang gabi, kaya yan ang dahilan you are mad at me”; “Duwag ka naman eh”[;] “putang ina mo”[;] etc.[7]
A confrontation between the two occurred in
March 2003 which was witnessed by Mary Jane Rodillas, a canteen helper, and one
Noemi Feje.
What transpired during the
confrontation was narrated at the witness stand by complainant as follows:
ATTY. LEE: In that incident which happened sometime in March 2003, what happened?
WITNESS [complainant]: I was eating, I did not see her coming. It was
ATTY. LEE: What happened after that?
WITNESS: She passed by my side and then she was making ismid [sic].
ATTY. LEE: What happened after that?
WITNESS: I turned to her and asked what is her problem.
ATTY. LEE: What did she say in return?
WITNESS: She suddenly gave me a middle finger sign.
ATTY. LEE: What did you do after having seen that she did that making finger sign?
WITNESS: I don’t understand what that meant. Sir.
ATTY. LEE: Any reaction from that finger sign that the respondent did?
WITNESS: I asked my companion what is it mean [sic].
ATTY. LEE: What did your companion say?
WITNESS: She said, “Later, because you might run after her when you find out what that means.”
ATTY. LEE: After that, what happened?
WITNESS: She stopped at the far end of the canteen and stayed there and she was still making the middle finger sign and she was challenging me.
ATTY. LEE: You said that she was wearing something?
ATTY. LEE: No question yet, your Honor.
WITNESS: Yes, sir, uniform.
ATTY. LEE: What was the uniform being worn by the respondent at that time?
WITNESS: Yellow-green blouse and fatigue-like pants.[8]
The foregoing account was substantially
corroborated at the witness stand by Mary Jane Rodillas.[9]
Advancing a different version of the
incident, respondent alleged in her
Counter-Affidavit as follows:
9. x x
x What really transpired is: I came from METROBANK and when I passed by the
canteen near the Mandaluyong Gymnasium, I did not notice the complainant until
I heard shouts from her “ANONG PROBLEMA
MO” etc. and also shouted “SHERYLL MANIAC”. And this did not
happen in the office but near the canteen beside the Mandaluyong Gymnasium.
Calling me SHERYLL MANIAC is a very
serious insult and an attack on my person and personality, since I am a lady,
single of 24 years of age, and don’t belong to the category she branded me as “MANIAC.”[10] (Emphasis in the original;
underscoring supplied).
In her Affidavit-Complaint,
complainant claimed that respondent shouted “fuck you” and made a “dirty middle
finger sign” at her. This claim was corroborated by Mary Jane
Rodillas and Noemi Feje in their respective affidavits.
Not denying having uttered “fuck you”
and made dirty middle finger sign, respondent justified the
same by claiming that they were done in retaliation. Thus she testified:
Q
[Atty. Floirendo]- Madam witness, in your counter affidavit, paragraph 9, you
stated that, and if I may quote your honor please, x x
x Do you
confirm and affirm the truth and veracity of this paragraph?
A – Yes ma’am.
Atty. Floirendo - You mean to say madam witness that it was the complainant who shouted to you first when you saw her near the Mandaluyong Gymnasium on the date she complained of?
A – Yes ma’am.[11]
In her Investigation Report,[12] Judge
Acosta-Villarante found as follows:
Respondent Madlangbayan was charged for Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming a Government Employee.
Misconduct generally means wrongful,
improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose (Words and Phrases, Vol. 27, page 466, citing Sewell vs.
Sharp, LA APP. 102 So 2d 259, 261).
From
the evidence presented, complainant, through [sic] nervous, and her
witness Mary Jane Rodillas, a canteen helper, testified in a candid and
straightforward manner indicating sincerity and truthfulness. The Investigating
Presiding Judge is persuaded that a confrontation between complainant and
respondent did in fact occur. As claimed by respondent, she came from METROBANK
and passed by the canteen. Mary Jane Rodillas testified that the time is
It should be stressed that respondent has
been nursing grudge/hatred against complainant by reason of the latter’s
non-payment of her balance in the credit card and her refusal to return the
downpayment on the bracelet despite insistent demands by respondent. What
is more, the irreconcilable differences had reached such a magnitude to the
extent that respondent reported this matter to her parents who called
complainant to pay her indebtedness but complainant allegedly invented stories
to respondent’s parents by saying, “Sinabihan ako ng anak niyo na walang hiya kayong
magulang niya, etc.” which caused the ire of respondent.
The Investigating Presiding Judge finds credible the allegation of complainant that respondent had been sending embarrassing text messages to harass complainant who appears adamant to the respondent’s demands.
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any kind of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals, inorder to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.
Under the given facts, the unprofessional conduct of respondent as court employee could bring the court into disrepute.[13] (Emphasis and underlining in the original; underscoring supplied).
Thus finding for complainant, Judge Acosta-Villarante
recommended that respondent be only reprimanded as this is the first offense
that she committed and that her actuations were “anchored on legitimate
demands.”[14]
Then Court Administrator, now Supreme
Court Associate Justice Presbitero J.
Velasco, Jr., by Report of
Even
if respondent has legitimate demands against complainant, it is still improper
for a court employee to make offensive and foul remarks. High strung and
belligerent behavior has no place in government service where the personnel are
enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when
confronted with rudeness and insolence. Conduct violative of this standard
quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts.
However,
the fact that this is respondent’s first offense is considered a mitigating
circumstance in her favor. A fine of P1,000.00 is therefore recommended.[16]
This Court finds Justice Velasco’s position
well-taken.
Even if respondent acted in retaliation
to complainant’s calling her “Sheryll Maniac” when she uttered “fuck you” and
made a dirty finger sign, that these were done in public by a court employee
who was then wearing office uniform creates a bad impression not only against respondent
as an employee but also against the judiciary.
Courts are looked upon by the people
with high respect. Misbehavior by their employees within and around their
vicinity necessarily diminishes their sanctity and dignity.[17] The injunction of this Court in Cervantes v. Cardeño thus bears reiterating:
We take this opportunity to remind, not only the respondent, but all court personnel as well, that the image of the judiciary is mirrored in the kind of conduct, official or otherwise, which the personnel within its employ display, from the judge to the lowest clerk. Any fighting or misunderstanding becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. Thus, all employees are required to preserve the judiciary’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[18] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied).
Disgraceful
conduct is classified as a grave offense under Section 52(A) of the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which is punishable by
suspension of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day to One (1) Year for the first
offense.
Following
the case of Policarpio v. Fortus,[19]
however, cited by Justice Velasco in his Report wherein the therein respondent
was found to have been engaged in discourteous acts improper of an employee of
the Judiciary and was fined P1,000, this Court finds reasonable the
recommended penalty of fine in the amount of P1,000.
WHEREFORE, for
disgraceful acts improper of an employee of the judiciary, respondent Sheryll
S. Madlangbayan, Clerk III of the
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
· Sometimes spelled Leilanie.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2] TSN,
[3] Celine Sales Invoice No. 189671, rollo, p. 290.
[4] Counter-Affidavit of Sheryll S. Madlangbayan, rollo, pp. 5- 6.
[5] Rollo,
p. 6.
[6]
[7] Affidavit-complaint of Leilani Nacionales, rollo, p. 1.
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] Rollo, p. 8.
[11] TSN,
[12] Rollo, pp. 320-325.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Merilo-Bedural v. Edroso, 396 Phil. 756, 763 (2000).
[18] A.M. No. P-05-2021,
[19] A.M. No. P-95-1114,