ELISEO D. VERZOSA, SOCORRO M. GAVARAN, MARGARITA E. SIAN, CRISTE C. SIAN, CELSA C. GONZAGA, FRANCISCO ENCARNACION III, SIEGFREDO ENCARNACION, ALBERTO TIA AND ARTURO A. ABLE, COM…

On June 6, 1977, Eliseo D. Verzosa, Socorro M. Gavaran,
Margarita E. Sian, Criste
C. Sian, Celsa C. Gonzaga, Francisco Encarnacion
III, Siegfredo Encarnacion,
Alberto Tia and Arturo A. Able, all employees of the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch
VI, requested an investigation of the respondent, Ma. Nena
Magdaluyo, also an employee thereat, charging the
latter for:  (1) being highly
inefficient; (2) habitual tardiness; and (3) making entries in the logbook that
she was present, when in fact she was absent. 
This case was subsequently referred to the Honorable Ernesto S. Tengco, the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance
of Negros Occidental for investigation, report and recommendation.  As a consequence of the transfer of Judge Tengco to Manila, the investigation was taken over by the
Honorable Ramon B. Britanico, in his capacity as
Vice-Executive Judge and Acting Executive Judge.

In his report, the
Investigator found the evidence insufficient to support the charges, thus:

“After a careful review of the record of this case, the
undersigned investigator is of the opinion that there is not enough evidence to
justify complainants’ charges against
respondent.  That the respondent is
‘highly inefficient’ is belied by the fact that she was given other assignments
in the office even after an administrative charge for inefficiency was filed
against her on 6 June 1977 (pp. 24-25, t.s.n., February 13, 1978).  In fact, it was complainant Verzosa himself who gave respondent these assignments.  His gripe, however, is that ‘respondent * * * asks so many questions even in
simple matters’ (p. 3, ibid.).  This,
to the mind of the investigator, is not reason enough to hold that respondent
is inefficient.  It must be noted that
respondent has been assigned to a variety of tasks in the office.  She was responsible for preparing the court
calendar (p. 2, ibid.), releasing orders and subpoenas in criminal cases (p. 3, ibid.), making
a list of pending criminal cases at the end of the month (p. 4, ibid.), and
receiving mail matter for the office (p. 5, ibid.).  She
was later on designated clerk in charge of criminal cases in July 1977 (p. 24, ibid.).  With all these changes and/or
additional assignments, it is only natural to expect that respondent has not
developed mastery over all of the details of her task, in the span of time that
she had been working in the office.  It
is not, therefore, any indication of inefficiency if she asks questions
relative to any particular matter or job she is
engaged in at the moment.

“Neither is there convincing evidence regarding the charge of
‘habitual tardiness.’ The daily time record submitted by respondent and
certified to as correct by the Branch Clerk of Court is enough to negate
complainants’ claim that respondent reported to the office habitually
late.  Besides, it strikes the
investigator as rather strange that respondent was singled out and charged with
habitual tardiness when the office’s logbook shows that there were also other
employees who made entries of their arrival after her.  If she was undertimed,
surely these others must likewise be undertimed.  The records, however, does not disclose that
those others were so marked.  There is
more than meets the eye in this situation. 
It is not far fetched for one to conclude that there have been some
personal misunderstandings among the employees
in that court, so that their grievances came to a head with the filing
of these charges.  It may
also not be amiss to
point out
that because of the strained relationship among the personnel of the
Court, their efficiency may have been affected, with the consequent detriment
to the judicial service.

“Regarding the charge that respondent had made entries in the
logbook that she was present when in fact she was absent, especially during the
period of 16-20 May 1977, this is belied by the fact that Exh.
‘6’, which is the Monthly Report of Employees’ Tardiness, Absences and Undertimes for May, 1977, signed by the Clerk of Court of that branch himself,
reflects no absence whatsoever made by respondent during the period in
question.  Besides, it seems incredible
that if respondent was really absent, she was able to make daily entries in the
logbook corresponding to the dates of her alleged absences (Exhs.
‘O’ to ‘S-2’, inclusive), with these entries being followed
by the entries of other employee, like stenographer Criste
Sian, also a complainant herein.  For all the dates in question, respondent’s
entries were always followed by other entries of her co-employees.  Respondent was said to have done all the
entries in only one day while the entries after hers were allegedly done at the
end of the month of May.  This practice
would be explained, unsatisfactorily, in the opinion of this investigator, by
complainant Gavaran that it was the presiding judge
who authorized the same for stenographers only as the latter were transcribing
their notes at their homes owing to space limitations at the office (p. 14, t.s.n., February 28, 1978).

“From
all the foregoing, this investigator is of the opinion that the respondent may
not be guilty of the charges, but it is evident that she cannot get along well
with her co-employees.  She has made
enemies of almost all if not all of the other members of the staff of Branch
VI.”

We find the findings of the Investigator to be supported by the
evidence on record.

It is, however, important to note that the afore-mentioned
charges arose from the failure of respondent to act with civility in her
relationship with her co-employees and to cooperate with them in the
performance of their public duties.  The
conduct of public officers and employees in their dealings with each other and
with the public should be marked by respect for and consideration of the
feelings of others.  Indeed, courtesy and
tactfulness are the most eloquent manifestations of a decent social behaviour.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby
resolved to DISMISS the charges against respondent.  She is, however, admonished to improve her
relationship with her co-employees, to act with civility, tact and courtesy in
her dealings with them and with the public.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Concepcion, Jr.,
Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., concurs,
it may be advisable to transfer the respondent to another branch of the
Occidental Negros CFI.

Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., on official leave.