BENJAMIN BARRERA, PETITIONER, VS. MARTY DESACADA, RESPONDENT.

Considering the following report and recommendation of the Court
Administrator, Justice Lorenzo Relova:

“The charge of misconduct against respondent Court Interpreter
Marty Desacada of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch I is cast by Court Stenographer Benjamin
Barrera, of the same court, in a letter-complaint dated January 24, 1979
alleging that respondent twice slapped complainant and uttered slanderous words, to wit:  ‘Porke’t malakas ka kay Judge …  Sinong ipinagmamalaki mo, si Judge?  Hindi ako
natatakot. 
Basagin ko
pa yang salamin sa mukha mo.  Putang-ina ninyong mga Ilocano, kabago-bago
pa lang kayo dito e.’

“It is further alleged that the incident took place at the
session hall of the court, in the presence
of Presiding Judge Pablo D. Suarez, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Herminio Gervacio, court
personnel, attending lawyers and about fifty other persons, as the trial of
cases was about to begin.

“When required to comment on the complaint, respondent in a
letter dated March 22, 1979
did not deny complainant’s allegations but merely mentioned the latter’s
withdrawal made earlier.  Said
withdrawal, in a letter dated March
20, 1979, disclosed complainant’s forgiveness upon accepting
respondent’s apology.  In it, complainant
also expressed his sufferance, that:  ‘It
is hard and painful to be aggrieved, especially when you are only considered a
stranger in a particular place, but I felt it is better to forgive and be
oppressed (in Cavite)
than seek redress but have enemies.’

“The undersigned in a letter dated November 28, 1979, again required respondent to
submit his comment on the complaint.  To
date, respondent has remained silent.

“The circumstances considered, it
should be fit to now determine respondent’s administrative accountability under
this complaint.  Having chosen not to
comment and deny the charge cast against him,
respondent is to be deemed having admitted complainant’s inculpatory
allegations.  Respondent’s admission is
also to be implied from his giving assent to complainant’s letter of withdrawal
which revealed his offer of apology to complainant.

“Complainant’s desistance cannot be an obstacle in taking disciplinary
action against respondent where the basis of his accountability has been
sufficiently established (Bais vs. Tugaoen, Adm. Matter No. 1575-MJ, April 20, 1979).  Furthermore, to condition, administrative
action upon the will of the complainant, who may, for one has reason or another, candone
a detestable act is to strip this Court of its supervisory power to discipline
those who err.  (Anguluan and Anguluan vs. Taguba, Adm. Matter No. 1402-MJ, September 14, 1979).

“Accordingly, for his misconduct, taking into consideration
respondent’s heretofore un­blemished record of service in Court since 1960, it
is respectfully recommended that respondent Marty Desacada
beheld administratively liable and meted the penalty of suspension of fifteen
(15) days without pay.”

The Court, after carefully considering
all relevant circums­tances extant in the record resolved to APPROVE said re­commendation,
and respondent is hereby suspended accor­dingly.

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Abad
Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Fernandez, J., concurred.
Member of the First Division and was designated to sit in the Second Division.

Concepcion, J., on official leave.