EXECUTIVE JUDGE PACIFICO S. BULADO, COMPLAINANT, VS. DOMINGO TIU, JR., UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DUMAGUETE CITY, BRANCH 44, RESPONDENT.

Bulado versus Tiu

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Executive Judge Pacifico S. Bulado against Domingo Tiu, Jr., a utility worker assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City. What began as a letter of referral to the Office of the Court Administrator became a disciplinary complaint for grave misconduct. The case matters because it settles a question every reviewee must be able to answer: can a complainant's forgiveness or withdrawal of an administrative complaint strip the Supreme Court of its power to discipline employees of the judiciary? The Court answers no, and dismisses the respondent from the service.

Procedural History

In a letter dated January 18, 1986, Judge Bulado, then Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, referred the conduct of Domingo Tiu, Jr. to the Office of the Court Administrator. Upon the recommendation of that Office, the Supreme Court treated the letter as an administrative complaint and ordered the respondent to comment. The respondent filed his comment, and the complainant filed a reply. On August 4, 1997, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. In a memorandum dated February 2, 1998, that Office recommended dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-entry to any government office. Later, the presiding judge of Branch 44 informed the Court that the respondent had a pending application for promotion, that the complainant had forgiven him, and recommended withdrawal of the case. The Office of the Court Administrator reiterated its recommendation of dismissal. The matter thus reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding, resolved in a per curiam decision.

Facts

Domingo Tiu, Jr. was a utility worker at Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City. He had numerous enemies among his co-employees and had to be reassigned several times. From Branch 44 he was detailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court, where he performed poorly and physically assaulted the clerk of court of Branch 33 after sexually harassing her. Ordered back to Branch 44, the presiding judge there wrote that if Tiu returned, there would be fracas every day which would derail the administration of justice. The Office of the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities also rejected him, and he was detailed to Branch 40.

His other infractions included not reporting for work and hiring somebody else to do his work; using the office of Branch 44 as his personal quarters and inviting another person to live there; and interfering with a pending criminal case by promising to release a bail bond without a court order. The clerk of court of Branch 44 issued memoranda ordering him to stop using the office as a residence and to stop interfering with cases.

In his comment, the respondent called the allegations baseless and claimed the complaint was a personal vendetta arising from an old family feud, and that it was harassment. The complainant replied that his letter rested on reports from court personnel, that the feud had long been settled, and that he never promised a promotion. The Office of the Court Administrator gave weight to the complainant's allegations because they were supported by numerous affidavits of judges and clerks of court. It denounced the respondent's violence, particularly the verbal tussle with a branch clerk over a pending case and the punching of the clerk of court of Branch 33 in the face.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct warranting dismissal from the service.
• Whether or not the withdrawal of the complaint, or the complainant's forgiveness of the respondent, extinguishes the respondent's administrative liability.

Applicable Provisions

Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service provides:

Grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal at the first instance.

This fixes the penalty for the offense the Court finds the respondent committed.

Section 9 of the same rule provides:

The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.

This supplies the accessory consequences of the dismissal decreed in the disposition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the records clearly reveal that the respondent committed acts amounting to grave misconduct. Under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service, such an offense is punishable by dismissal at the first instance. The Court gave weight to the affidavits of judges and clerks of court and to the Office of the Court Administrator's denunciation of the respondent's violence, which it said has no place in the judiciary.

On the second issue, the Court held that the withdrawal of the complaint does not free the respondent from administrative liability. While the complainant may have forgiven him, the Court, charged with enforcing discipline in the judiciary, cannot close its eyes to his acts of extreme intransigence. Administrative proceedings against public employees are imbued with public interest, public office being a public trust. The need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government requires that proceedings in administrative cases should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of the complainants, who are, in a real sense, only witnesses. The Court cannot be bound by the unilateral act of a complainant in a matter that involves its disciplinary authority over all employees of the judiciary; otherwise, its disciplinary power may be put to naught.

Doctrine

First, grave misconduct by an employee of the judiciary is punishable by dismissal at the first instance under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service.

Second, the withdrawal of an administrative complaint or the complainant's forgiveness does not extinguish administrative liability. Administrative proceedings are imbued with public interest, public office being a public trust, and the complainant is in a real sense only a witness. The disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over judiciary employees cannot be defeated by the unilateral act of a complainant.

Third, dismissal carries with it forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits and disqualification from reemployment in the government service, under Section 9 of the same rule.

Disposition

The Court dismissed Domingo Tiu, Jr. from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement and other benefits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the withdrawal of a complaint does not free a respondent from administrative liability, because the complainant is in a real sense only a witness. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that administrative liability is not extinguished by desistance, compromise, or forgiveness, and that grave misconduct carries dismissal at the first instance.