RUTH NADIA N. DE LOS SANTOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSE RENE C. VASQUEZ, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41 BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

De Los Santos versus Vasquez

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Ruth Nadia De Los Santos complains against Jose Rene Vasquez, a Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 41, for inhuman and unruly behavior, dishonesty, and threat. The complaint arises from a confrontation inside a grocery store in Barangay Mansilingan, Bacolod City, where the complainant was collecting a debt from the sheriff's wife. The case matters because it tests the exacting standard of conduct demanded of every employee of the Judiciary, not only in the performance of official duties but also in private dealings with other people, and it shows how a prior administrative warning converts a repeat offense into the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her letter-complaint and affidavit-complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator. Acting on the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Supreme Court, in a resolution dated January 30, 2017, referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court for investigation, report, and recommendation. Executive Judge Raymond Joseph Javier conducted the investigation and heard the parties, including a hearing on May 19, 2017. In his investigation report, the Executive Judge found no evidence to sustain the charges of dishonesty and abuse of authority, but found the respondent guilty of conduct unbecoming a court employee and recommended suspension for six months without pay, noting that the respondent had been previously found administratively liable for the same offense. The matter then returned to the Supreme Court, which resolved it in this per curiam decision.

Facts

On July 27, 2015, at around four o'clock in the afternoon, the complainant was doing her groceries at a store in Barangay Mansilingan, Bacolod City, when she met Beverly Vasquez, the respondent's wife, who owed her money. While the complainant was confronting Beverly about the loan, the respondent, who according to the complainant smelled of liquor, suddenly appeared from behind, hit her left arm, and threatened her with words to the effect that she should not wait for something to happen to her. Fearing the threat, the complainant had the incident recorded in the police blotter at Police Station 7 in Mansilingan.

The complainant also alleged that she had earlier filed two cases against the respondent and his wife: one for collection of a sum of money, in which the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6, rendered a decision in her favor and issued a writ of execution that had not been served, and one for estafa, pending with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. She believed that the respondent, being a sheriff, had manipulated the service of the writ.

In his comment, the respondent denied hitting the complainant and denied being drunk. He claimed that he was in the Mansilingan area serving summons when his wife called to say they were out of cooking gas, so he asked her to meet him at the store to give her money. Entering the store, he saw his wife and the complainant in a tussle, with the complainant holding his wife's arm, shaking her, and pointing a finger at her face. He confronted the complainant and they exchanged words until he lost his patience and angrily told her not to wait for things to get worse. He then pulled his wife away and left. He denied manipulating the service of the writ, saying it had already been served on his wife by the sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, and that he had been discharged as a defendant in the collection case.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming a court employee for slapping the complainant's shoulder, using improper and intemperate words, and threatening her.
• Whether or not the respondent's act of leaving his office during office hours without the required written authority to travel constitutes a violation of the rules on official time.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal is proper given the respondent's prior administrative liability for a similar offense.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52, paragraph B, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Simple misconduct is punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.

This provision fixes the range of penalties for simple misconduct and supplies the basis for escalating the penalty to dismissal on a second offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Judge and held that the respondent's act of slapping the complainant's shoulder, his use of improper and intemperate words, and his threat against her should not be countenanced. Such acts tarnished not only the image and integrity of the public office but also the public perception of the Judiciary. The Court stressed that employees of the Judiciary should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other people, and that their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity. Discourtesy and disrespect have no place in the Judiciary, and any scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people's esteem for the Judiciary is unbecoming of an employee and tantamount to simple misconduct.

On the second issue, the Court found that the respondent left his office during office hours without securing the necessary permission from his superiors. His explanation that he was in the area serving summons was bereft of merit, because during the hearing he admitted that he was not armed with a written authority to travel, could not remember the cases for which the summonses were issued, and admitted that he only asked permission verbally without any written permission. The Court reminded judicial officials and employees that they must devote their official time to government service and strictly observe the prescribed office hours.

On the third issue, the Court noted that this was not the first time the respondent had been administratively charged. In a prior administrative case, he had been found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a government employee for deliberately bumping and hitting the left breast of the complainant therein, was suspended for two months, and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. Despite that warning, he repeated the same act. Applying the rule that simple misconduct is punishable by dismissal for the second offense, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

Doctrine

Employees of the Judiciary must be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other people, so as to preserve the good name and standing of the courts in the community at all times. Their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity, and discourtesy and disrespect have no place in the Judiciary. Any scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people's esteem for the Judiciary is unbecoming of an employee and tantamount to simple misconduct. Under Section 52, paragraph B, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. Judicial officials and employees must devote their official time to government service and strictly observe the prescribed office hours, and leaving the office on official business without the required written authority to travel is a violation of that duty.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of conduct unbecoming of a court employee and dismissed him from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that any scandalous behavior or act that may erode the people's esteem for the Judiciary is unbecoming of an employee and tantamount to simple misconduct, punishable by dismissal on the second offense. Examiners like to use this case to test the exacting standard of conduct for judicial employees in their private dealings and the escalation of the penalty for a repeat offense.