RE:  OMBUDSMAN CASE NO. OMB-ADM­-5-92-0100 (GEMMA LETICIA F. TABLATE V. CAROLINA P. TANJUTCO-SEECHUNG); AND OMBUDSMAN CASE NO. OMB-ADM­-5-92-0179 (CAROLINA T. SEECHUNG V. GEMMA …

Two (2) separate First Indorsements dated 4 March 1992 and 27
April 1992 were sent to this Court by the Office of the Ombudsman referring to
us for appropriate action OMB­-ADM-5-92-0100 entitled “Gemma Leticia F.
Tablate vs. Carolina P. Tanjutco-Seechung” and OMB-ADM-5-92-0179 entitled
“Carolina T. Seechung vs. Gemma Leticia F. Tablate, et al.”
respectively. In respect of the latter
case, the relevant First Indorsement refers only to the named parties, since
the Ombudsman had dismissed the charges against the co-respondents.

Atty. Gemma Leticia Tablate and Atty. Carolina Tanjutco­-Seechung
are co-workers at the Reporter’s Division of the Court of Appeals where the
former is the Chief of the division and the latter holds the position of Court
Attorney IV.

In OMB-ADM-5-92-0179, complainant Seechung filed the following
administrative charges against respondent Tablate: (1) grave misconduct and libel; (2) violation of the Anti-Graft
Law; (3) malversation of public funds and property; (4) violation of P.D. 1982
on eleven counts; (5) falsification of daily time records; (6) falsification of
evidence; (7) malevolent suppression of evidence, intimidation and harassment;
(8) grave abuse of power and authority, arbitrariness and oppression; (9)
violation of section 7(d) of R.A. 6713; (10) gross incompetence and willful
neglect of duties; and (11) civil service disqualification.

In her amended complaint Seechung avers that Tablate caused the
publication of an article in the Manila
Standard on 30 June
1989, entitled “Square pegs in round holes” about alleged misfits in
the Court of Appeals occupying positions they did not deserve, after she
(Tablate) had been by-passed for a promotion. Such publication allegedly had the effect of lessening the public’s
confidence in the Court of Appeals. Regarding the other charges, Seechung claims that Tablate ordered the
recording of a sale in her favor
of ten (10) volumes of the Court of Appeals Reports valued at one thousand five
hundred ninety-seven pesos and forty centavos (P1,597.40) and the issuance of a
corresponding purchase order, even if no payment had been made thereon. Thereafter, Tablate allegedly availed of the
free mailing service of the Court of Appeals for her personal use, to send the
books to a certain Atty. Gerardo Tamaca in Leyte. Lastly, Seechung relates that when she was taking pictures of
their office to be used as evidence to support the instant complaint, Tablate
shouted at her and drove her out of the office. On the next day, Seechung was ordered by Tablate to remove all
her things from the office but before she could comply, Tablate screamed at her
again.^[1]

For her part, Tablate in her comment denies all the allegations
made by Seechung against her and maintains that the same has no basis in fact
and in law.^[2]

In OMB-ADM-5-92-0100, complainant Tablate brought the following
counter-charges against respondent Seechung: (1) gross neglect of duty;
(2) inefficiency and non-performance of official duties and responsibilities;
(3) habitual tardiness; (4) loafing and engaging in private business activities
during office hours; (5) gross insubordination and discourtesy; (6) violation
of the dress code; (7) tampering with office logbooks and unlawful taking of office records; (8) harassment
and oppression of personnel in the Reporter’s Division; (9) conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and (10) falsification of
public document.

Tablate contends that Seechung failed to submit work assignments
and decisions or resolutions for verification from September to November 1991
because the latter was preoccupied with her personal cases. Moreover, the daily time records allegedly
show that Seechung had always been tardy for work during the same months. Still further, Seechung would also spend
most of her time on the telephone in pursuit of her personal and business
ventures, i.e. export business and speaking engagements in seminars for private
corporations. Lastly, Tablate claims
that when she (Tablate) called her (Seechung) attention to her frequent
tardiness and non-performance of duties, Seechung shouted at her.^[3]

Seechung avers in her comment that these counter-­charges were
designed to discredit and harass her because she had exposed Tablate’s
misdeeds. She also affirmed her
devotion to her work.^[4]

Upon receipt of the records, the Court, issued a Resolution dated
10 November 1992 consolidating the two (2) above-mentioned cases and referring
the same to Associate Justice Angelina S. Gutierrez of the Court of Appeals for
investigation, report and recommendation.

Mme. Justice Gutierrez, after conducting an investigation,
submitted to this Court her Report where she made the following findings:

“There is substantial evidence to prove that when confronted
about her tardiness, Atty. Seechung shouted at Atty. Tablate, her superior; and
that when Atty. Seechung filed the instant
charges and tried to get her things from the office, Atty. Tablate also
shouted at her and forced her to leave the place.

x x x                x x x                 x
x x

With respect to the charges of Atty. Seechung against Atty.
Tablate, there is substantial evidence showing that she caused the publication
of the article heretofore reproduced. Manifest from the article is her disappointment over the appointment by
the Court of Appeals of another employee to the position of clerk of
court. The article criticized the Court
of Appeals for having committed
injustice [against] Atty. Tablate.

x x x                x x x                  x
x x

The other charges against Atty. Tablate are not supported by
substantial evidence.

Relative to the charges of Atty. Tablate against Atty. Seechung,
the undersigned finds that there is substantial evidence that she committed
habitual tardiness and engaging in business without permission from this Court.

Records show that Atty. Seechung reported to the office late almost
everyday during the months of October, November and December 1991. x x x

That Atty. Seechung is involved in [an] export business and in
holding seminars for private corporations without permission from this Court,
contrary to the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987, are shown by the
records. x x x

The other charges against Atty. Seechung should be dismissed, not
having been substantiated.”^[5]

Based on such findings, Justice Gutierrez made the subsequent
recommendation:

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Gemma
Leticia Tablate be found guilty of discourtesy and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and be FINED in the sum equivalent to her one month salary; and
that Atty. Carolina T. Seechung be likewise found guilty of discourtesy, habitual tardiness and engaging in the private pursuit of business or
profession without the permission required by
the Civil Service rules and regulations and be FINED in an amount equivalent to
her one month salary. Both parties
should also be WARNED that repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.”^[6]

After examination of the pertinent pleadings and the Report
filed, the Court accepts the conclusions reached by Justice Gutierrez.

R.A. 6713 states that:

“It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of
ethics in public service. Public
officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall
discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence and
loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public
interest over personal interest.”^[7]

The record shows that the conduct of Atty. Seechung and Atty.
Tablate fell far short of the decorum and professionalism expected of employees
of the Court of Appeals.

This dispute between two co-employees would never have reached
this Court had the parties exercised the self-restraint, honor and decency
demanded of them as public servants and more importantly, as lawyers. Shouting at each other at their workplace
and during working hours shows discourtesy and disrespect not only towards
one’s co-workers but to the Court of Appeals. Such conduct also exhibits failure on the part of both parties to
discharge their duties with the required degree of professionalism, to respect
at all times the rights of others and to refrain from acts contrary to good
morals and good customs as demanded by R.A. 6713.^[8]

We agree with the Investigating Justice that Atty. Tablate should
have acted with reserve and civility even when confronted with rudeness. The position of Chief of the Reporter’s
Division imposes upon the holder thereof the duty to provide a model of
exemplary behavior to those who work under her.

Atty. Tablate has not denied the fact that she had prompted the
publication of the article “Square pegs in round holes” which
protested the Court of Appeals’ decision, which was upheld by this Court, to
appoint another person to the position of Division Clerk of Court. In this article, Atty. Tablate was quoted as
saying, “I was well-qualified for the job but they gave it to a
protege”^[9]
thereby insinuating that said appointment was unjust and that both courts erred
in making the same. However, Atty.
Tablate was unable to offer any substantiation other than her own self?serving
statement that she was well-qualified for the job. As an employee of the Court of Appeals, Atty. Tablate should be
careful not to do anything that would tend to degrade that Court, or any other
court for that matter and arbitrarily to diminish the confidence reposed by the
public in the judiciary.

As for Atty. Seechung, her frequent tardiness and engaging in
private business without the permission required by the Civil Service rules and
regulations warrant disciplinary action.^[10]

It should not be necessary to stress again that the conduct and
behavior of every official and employee of an agency involved in the
administration of justice, like the Court of Appeals, from the Presiding
Justice to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden
of responsibility. Their conduct must
at all times be characterized by, among other things, propriety and decorum^[11]
so as to earn and keep the public’s respect for and confidence in the judicial
service. The behavior of the parties
here was totally unbecoming those who form part of the judicial service and the
bar and cannot be countenanced.

The other charges brought against Atty. Tablate and Atty. Seechung have not been
established by adequate proof and are hereby dismissed.

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the Court
finds Atty. Gemma Leticia Tablate GUILTY
of discourtesy and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the
service and Atty. Carolina Tanjutco-Seechung GUILTY of discourtesy, conduct prejudicial to the best interests
of the service and unauthorized engaging in business and Resolved to IMPOSE upon each of them a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00)
with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Amended Complaint of Carolina Seechung, Court of Appeals Records Folder, 3
March 1992, pp. 2-29; Rollo, pp. 176-203.

^[2]
Comment of Gemma Tablate, 11 December 1991, Court of Appeals Records, pp. 5-13,
Rollo pp. 55-63.

^[3]
Complaint of Gemma Tablate, 24 February 1992, pp. 2-8; Rollo pp. 11-17.

^[4]
Comment of Carolina Seechung, Court of Appeals Records, 14 April 1992, p. 2, Rollo,
p. 329.

^[5]
Report and Recommendation of Justice Angelina S. Gutierrez, pp. 9-11.

^[6]
ibid. pp. 12-13.

^[7]
Section 2 of R.A. 6713.

^[8]
Section 4 (c), R.A. 6713.

^[9]
Annex “A” Court of Appeals Records, Rollo p. 206.

^[10]
R.A. 6713; Section 46, Chapter 6, Book VII of the Administrative Code or E.O. 292.

^[11]
Re: Josefina Palon, 213 SCRA 219
[1992]; Angeles vs. Bantug, 209 SCRA 413 [1992]; Callejo, Jr. vs.
Garcia, 206 SCRA 491 [1992].