Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
JUDGE RENE
B. BACULI, Complainant, - versus - CLEMENTE U. UGALE, Interpreter II, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities Branch 1,
Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-08-2569 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2789-P] Present: QUISUMBING,*
J. CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, cHICO-NAZARIO,
PERALTA, and ABAD,** JJ.
Promulgated: October 30, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PERALTA, J.
In a Letter-Complaint dated February 11, 2008, complainant Judge Rene B. Baculi, presiding
judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City,
charged respondent Clemente U. Ugale, Interpreter II, of the same court, with
Incompetence, Habitual Drunkenness and Loafing.
Prior to the instant complaint, Judge Baculi had already issued several
memoranda to respondent concerning the same charges, to wit:
First, on
October 9, 2007, reminding respondent of his propensity to be always out of
office resulting in his failure to perform his duty as court interpreter;
Second, on February
4, 2008, informing respondent of the manifestation made by a certain Atty.
Antonio Laggui that respondent is incapable of performing his function as court
interpreter, specifically in his interpretation of the vernacular dialect into
English during court trials; and
Third, on
In all memoranda, complainant Judge ordered respondent to explain all the
charges against him and explain altogether why no sanctions should be imposed
on him. However, in all three (3) instances, respondent ignored the same. Thus,
prompting Judge Baculi to file the instant administrative complaint against
Ugale.
In his Comment dated
Your Honor, may I inform your good Office that I met a vehicular accident sometime in February 2003 and sustained broken legs and due to the cold weather in the past months (January and February 2008), the pains of my injuries recurred and because I could no longer bear the severe pains, I resorted to occasional drinking liquor just to ease myself from such extreme pains, your Honor. That the Honorable Judge was unaware of my present ailment and he might have misunderstood my acts as a sign of disrespect to him and to the Court and negligence on my job. My apologies, therefore, to the Honorable Judge and to your Honor.
That due to the consistent recurrence of the pains on the injuries I sustained and with the medicines I took, it affected my sense of hearing so much so that I could not give the correct interpretation, especially during court hearings, the reason for which I went on leave starting February 2008. In fact, I voluntarily applied for an early retirement for I could no longer efficiently perform my duties in Court due to unbearable pains. Sad to note that I was not able to inform personally the Honorable Judge that I already filed my application for retirement. Again, my greatest apology to the Honorable Judge and to your Honor for my shortcomings.[1]
Unconvinced,
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that respondent Ugale
be held liable for Incompetence, Habitual Drunkenness and Loafing, and be
suspended for eight (8) months.
We adopt the recommendation of the
OCA.
Time and again, this Court has
pointed out the heavy burden and responsibility which court personnel are
saddled with, in view of their exalted positions as keepers of the public
faith. They should, therefore, be constantly reminded that any impression of
impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions
must be avoided. Those who work in the judiciary must adhere to high ethical
standards to preserve the court’s good name and standing. They should be
examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they must discharge
their duties with due care and utmost diligence, since they are officers of the
court and agents of the law. Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part
of those who would violate the norms of public accountability and diminish or
even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not
be countenanced.[2]
In
the instant case, respondent cannot take refuge behind his alleged ailment to
justify his infractions. In fact, respondent made no categorical denial of the
accusations against him. He merely sidestepped the same by explaining that he
had been drinking in order to ease the pains brought about by his leg injury.
He shifted the blame on the medications he took for his failure to perform his
duties as court interpreter. He had been constantly reminded of his unfavorable
behavior but he remained unrepentant. The only time he took an effort to make
excuses for himself was when an administrative complaint was already filed
against him. However, the fact remains that, even by his own admission,
respondent had been remiss in the performance of his duties.
Moreover, it is also our view that if
respondent was really concerned in dissipating his leg pains, he should have consulted
a doctor instead of resorting to drinking alcohol. His theory that the alcohol
had a therapeutic effect on his ailment fails to convince. Even assuming that it
was true, respondent should be aware that drinking liquors during office hours
is strictly prohibited. Furthermore, as court interpreter, he ought to know as
well that he performs an important role in running the machinery of our trial
court system necessary for the proper and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, if
indeed his ailment made it difficult for him to comply with his duties, he
should have at least informed complainant Judge and/or his branch clerk of
court of his health condition. Significantly, we also take note that no medical
certificate was submitted in support of respondent’s alleged health condition.
Clearly,
respondent has shown his utter lack of dedication to the function of his office.
Undeniably, respondent’s failure to perform his duties, his unauthorized
disappearances and habitual drunkenness during office hours, hamper his
efficiency as a court interpreter. Consequently, respondent’s reprehensible
conduct should not go unheeded for his actuations are clearly inimical to the
service and prejudicial to the interest of litigants and the general public.
He, therefore, deserves to be sanctioned.
We come to the matter of penalties. Section 53 of the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[3]
provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, the
exonerating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances may be
considered. Moreover, pursuant to Section 55,[4] if the respondent is found guilty of two (2)
or more charges, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the
most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating
circumstances. In this case, we consider incompetence as the most serious
charge.
Under Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[5] habitual
drunkenness[6] is
classified as a less grave offense and is punishable by suspension for one (1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense; loafing[7] is
classified as a grave offense punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one
(1) day to one (1) year for the first offense; and incompetence[8] is
classified as a grave offense and is punishable by suspension for six (6)
months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense.
However, while this Court is duty-bound to sternly
wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out
those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the
harshness of its judgment with mercy.[9] Thus,
as recommended by the OCA and pursuant to Section 54[10]
of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, considering that Ugale is
a first-time offender and having committed the aggravating circumstances of
habitual drunkenness and loafing, the penalty of suspension for eight (8) months
and one (1) day without pay should be imposed against him.
However, upon verification with the OCA-Retirement
Division, respondent had indeed filed an application for early retirement and
is now pending before the OCA-Legal Office for study and recommendation.
Consequently, instead of imposing the penalty of suspension, the more
appropriate sanction is to impose on him a fine in the amount equivalent to his
eight (8) months salary, deductible from his retirement benefits.[11]
The Court emphasizes that respondent’s application for retirement does not
render the present administrative case moot and academic; neither does it free
him from liability. Since complainant filed the case when respondent was still
in service, the Court retains the authority to investigate and resolve the
administrative case against him.[12]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Clemente U. Ugale,
Interpreter II of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tuguegarao
City, Cagayan, GUILTY of INCOMPETENCE, HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS and LOAFING, and
is ORDERED to pay a FINE equivalent to his eight (8) months
salary to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
|
SO
ORDERED. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
*
Designated to sit as an
additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per
Special Order No. 755 dated
** Designated to sit as an additional
member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Special
Order No. 753 dated
[1] Emphasis supplied.
[2] Gutierrez v. Quitalig, 448 Phil. 469, 478-479 (2003).
[3] Executive Order No. 292.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Saula De Leon-Dela Cruz v. Fernando P. Recacho,
A.M. No. P-06-2122,
[10] Supra note 3.
Section 54. Manner of Imposition. - When applicable, the imposition of the penalty may be made in accordance with the manner provided hereinbelow:
a. The minimum of the penalty shall be imposed where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present.
b. The medium of the penalty shall be imposed where no mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present.
c. The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present.
d. Where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, paragraph [a] shall be applied where there are more mitigating circumstances present; paragraph [b] shall be applied when the circumstances equally offset each other; and paragraph [c] shall be applied when there are more aggravating circumstances.
[11] See Re: Complaint Filed by Atty. Francis Allan A. Rubio on the Alleged Falsification of Public Documents and Malversation of Public Funds, 482 Phil. 318, 330 (2004).
[12] See
City of