JUDGE ALDEN V. CERVANTES, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDWIN D. CARDEÑO, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABUYAO, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

Cervantes versus Cardeño

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Judge Alden V. Cervantes of the Municipal Trial Court of Cabuyao, Laguna, against Edwin D. Cardeño, a Utility Worker First Class of the same court. The judge charged the respondent with conduct unbecoming of a court employee, gross discourtesy, insubordination, and grave misconduct, arising from a fistfight inside the court's office during working hours and from the respondent's interference with the Acting Clerk of Court in the performance of her duties. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of every person in the judicial service, from the judge down to the lowest clerk, and because it shows how the Supreme Court calibrates the penalty for a first offense.

Procedural History

The case began not with a formal complaint but with a letter-report of Judge Cervantes addressed to the Court Administrator. The judge himself conducted an investigation, took the statements of the persons present, and recommended the dismissal of the respondent from the service. The Office of the Court Administrator then required the respondent to file his comment, which he did through a sworn statement. After evaluating the records, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report recommending that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative case and that the respondent be fined One Thousand Pesos and sternly warned. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in full agreement with the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

On the morning of 24 November 2004, at around 10:55 in the morning, Judge Cervantes was in his chambers when he was disturbed by a commotion in the adjacent room. He stepped out and saw the respondent Cardeño and one Sherwin Hermano engaged in a fistfight, while the Acting Clerk of Court, Arlyn Alcantara, tried to pacify them. Several court personnel and one outsider were present.

Hermano testified that he had come to the court to accompany a friend who was applying for a clerical position. After he handed the application to the Acting Clerk of Court, the respondent snatched it, handed it back to the applicant, and told him not to apply because the judge had already recommended someone for the position. The Acting Clerk of Court admonished the respondent not to interfere with her official acts. The respondent then uttered insulting and sarcastic words against her, picked up a tape dispenser, and hit Hermano, who fought back and punched him in the mouth. The statements of Hermano were corroborated by the Acting Clerk of Court, by the Court Stenographer, and by the outsider.

For his part, the respondent admitted the fistfight but claimed it arose from Hermano's jealousy over his relationship with the Acting Clerk of Court. He also imputed malice to the judge, saying the judge resented him because he had obtained a copy of a payroll which he intended to use in a complaint against the judge. The Court found that the respondent never denied the fistfight, the snatching of the application, or the blow with the tape dispenser.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for uttering discourteous words and for fighting with a visitor inside the court premises during working hours.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of insubordination and interference in the performance of duty of the Acting Clerk of Court.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal recommended by the investigating judge should be imposed, or the lighter penalty of a fine recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator.

Applicable Provisions

The Court anchors the standard of conduct on the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which it cites as Administrative Matter Number 03-06-13-SC, and on the settled rule that the conduct of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. The Court quotes its own ruling in Quiroz versus Orfila, reiterated in Alumbres versus Caoibes, Junior:

Fighting between court employees during office hours is disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. It displays a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and dignity with which court business should be treated. Shouting at one another in the workplace and during office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers, but to the court as well. The behavior of the parties was totally unbecoming members of the judicial service. Such conduct cannot be countenanced.

This passage supplies the very rule the respondent violated, and it is the measure against which his acts inside the court premises are judged.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the respondent is guilty of misconduct. It defined misconduct as a transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly an unlawful behavior by the public officer. The Court stressed that high-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service, where personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence, and that this standard governs their dealings not only with the public but also with co-workers. By fighting within court premises, the respondent failed to observe the decorum expected of members of the judiciary and failed to promote public confidence in its integrity and impartiality.

On the second issue, the Court found that the respondent snatched the application paper from the hands of the Acting Clerk of Court, which drew her admonition not to interfere with the work of the Clerk of Court, and that he then became belligerent and uttered insulting words before striking Hermano with the tape dispenser. The Court held that it was the respondent who provoked the fracas, and that his imputation of malicious motive to the judge did not excuse his actions.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that a fine of One Thousand Pesos was proper, rather than the dismissal recommended by the investigating judge. It noted that the respondent had served the trial court for nine years and that this was his first offense, so a stiffer penalty would be too harsh. The Court closed with a reminder that the image of the judiciary is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the personnel within its employ, from the judge to the lowest clerk.

Doctrine

First, the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility, and employees' actions at all times must be characterized by propriety and decorum and must be above suspicion. Second, high-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service, where personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence, and this standard applies to their dealings not only with the public but also with co-workers. Third, fighting between court employees during office hours is disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary, and shouting at one another in the workplace during office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers but to the court as well. Fourth, misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly an unlawful behavior by the public officer. Fifth, in fixing the penalty, the Court may temper dismissal with a fine where the employee has rendered long service and the offense is a first offense.

Disposition

The respondent was found guilty of misconduct and was fined One Thousand Pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that fighting between court employees during office hours is disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Examiners use this case to test the standard of conduct of judicial personnel toward co-workers and the public, and the mitigating role of length of service and first offense in fixing the penalty.