BENJAMIN C. GRATELA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSE P. YONZON, JR., SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON, SORSOGON, RESPONDENT.

Gratela versus Yonzon

The Case

This is an administrative matter arising from two clerks of the same court accusing each other of misconduct. Benjamin Gratela, the Clerk of Court of Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, charged Deputy Sheriff Jose Yonzon, Jr. of that same branch with drunkenness during office hours, assault on a superior, misconduct, and threats. Yonzon answered with his own charges of falsification, absenteeism, dishonesty, discourtesy, neglect of duty, and immoral conduct. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of every employee of the judiciary, and it shows how the Supreme Court disciplines court personnel who disgrace the service, even when the quarrel is between two of them.

Procedural History

The complaints were transmitted to the Supreme Court by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon. The Court referred the administrative cases to Executive Judge Eudarlio Valencia for investigation, report, and recommendation. Yonzon asked that another investigator be designated, doubting Judge Valencia's impartiality, and although Judge Valencia found the ground baseless he interposed no objection to being relieved. The Court approved his inhibition and designated Judge Haile Frivaldo of the Regional Trial Court of Gubat, Sorsogon, to conduct the investigation. One complaint was dismissed because Gratela had died, and the remaining cases were consolidated before Judge Frivaldo. In his final report, Judge Frivaldo recommended dismissal of the first complaint for insufficiency of evidence, and a finding of guilt for simple misconduct and gross discourtesy in the others, with suspension of one month and one day. The Office of the Court Administrator reviewed the report and recommended a finding of guilt for misconduct, discourtesy to a superior, and conduct unbecoming of a public official, with a fine of 5,000 pesos. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which agreed with the evaluation but modified the penalty.

Facts

On the sixth of May, 1991, Gratela alleged that Yonzon, apparently drunk, pointed a finger at him and shouted invectives at him in the office. Gratela tried to pacify him, and Attorney Marilyn Valino of the Office of the Clerk of Court also tried to calm him down, but Yonzon continued screaming. He picked up a typewriter and was about to throw it at Gratela when Engineer Cunanan grabbed it away. Yonzon left, then returned kicking the door open, pointed a knife at Gratela and threatened to kill him, and finally grabbed him by the neck and threw things at him, until two policemen arrived and restrained him.

Yonzon denied the allegations. He claimed that he had gone to Gratela to follow up a request for a writ of execution, discovered that the writ was not where Gratela said it was, and confronted him. According to Yonzon, Gratela flared up, accused him of being interested in the case for money, and grabbed a knife to threaten him, so that Yonzon withdrew and later returned with an old shotgun. The witnesses gave conflicting accounts. One could not recall whether Yonzon was drunk but confirmed that both men yelled at each other and that Gratela held a bladed knife. Attorney Valino confirmed the altercation and that Gratela held a knife, and she did not notice Yonzon being drunk. Engineer Cunanan confirmed the exchange of angry words but said it was Gratela who threw things at Yonzon.

In a later complaint, Gratela charged Yonzon with habitual drunkenness, misconduct, and insubordination, alleging that on the twenty-second of July, 1991, Yonzon followed him and shouted at him and challenged him to a fistfight, supported by sworn affidavits. Yonzon admitted the argument but claimed that Gratela had provoked him by staring at him contemptuously and growling at him.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Yonzon is guilty of misconduct, discourtesy to a superior, and conduct unbecoming of a public official on the basis of the incidents complained of.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator should be imposed on respondent.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled administrative standard that court personnel must at all times act with strict propriety and proper decorum, a standard the Court applies directly to the conduct of respondent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the report and evaluation of the Office of the Court Administrator. It held that the conduct of respondent tended to degrade the dignity and the image of the judiciary, and that the Court looks upon with great disfavor any display of animosity by any court employee. The Court stressed that court personnel must, at all times, act with strict propriety and proper decorum so as to earn the public's regard for the judiciary. Improper behavior, particularly during office hours, exhibits not only a paucity of professionalism at the workplace but also a great disrespect to the court itself, and such a demeanor is a failure of the circumspection demanded of every public official and employee.

On the second issue, the Court modified the penalty. Instead of the fine of 5,000 pesos recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, the Court, finding respondent guilty of misconduct, imposed on him a fine of 2,000 pesos, with a warning that any further infraction by him would severely be dealt with.

Doctrine

Every employee of the judiciary, from the highest to the lowest, must at all times act with strict propriety and proper decorum so as to earn the public's regard for the judiciary. Improper behavior, particularly during office hours, is not merely a lack of professionalism at the workplace; it is a great disrespect to the court itself and a failure of the circumspection demanded of every public official and employee. Any display of animosity by a court employee is viewed by the Court with great disfavor, and conduct that tends to degrade the dignity and image of the judiciary is punishable as misconduct, even when the quarrel is between two court employees and even when the evidence shows mutual provocation.

Disposition

The Court found respondent Yonzon guilty of misconduct and imposed on him a fine of 2,000 pesos, with a warning that any further infraction would be severely dealt with.

Remember This

Memorize the line that court personnel must at all times act with strict propriety and proper decorum so as to earn the public's regard for the judiciary. Examiners use this case in administrative law and judicial ethics to test the standard of conduct of court employees and the rule that improper behavior during office hours, even in a quarrel between court officers, is misconduct that degrades the judiciary.