In bad taste; court staff reprimanded.

[A.M. No. 00-02-OCA. June 19, 2002]

SPS. MORALES vs. ROJAS

 

X x x.

Respondent Exequiel C. Rojas, an employee of the Statistics Division of the Office of the Court Administrator, is charged with "Conduct Grossly Unbecoming an Employee of the Judiciary" for having uttered malicious and libelous statements against other employees of the Supreme Court.

Complainant-spouses Rogelio and Ma. Elena Morales are both Supreme Court employees, working at the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Complainant Ma. Elena Morales alleged that on November 4, 1999, she went to the Landbank Taft/Apacible branch with an officemate in order to encash their checks. Upon her arrival at the bank she recognized three (3) other Supreme Court employees from the Statistics Division including a certain Artemio Bobadilla, with whom she exchanged pleasantries. Thereafter, she noticed two (2) more Supreme Court employees entering the bank, including herein respondent who she was not acquainted with personally. The respondent and his companion approached Artemio Bobadilla's group, and showed them the bottle of liquor that he was carrying in his shoulder bag. She then overheard the respondent utter in front of everyone: "Ah, si Roger, balo. Nilason niya ang asawa niya, may insurance kasi. Kilala ko si Roger, 1970's pa, nilason niyang asawa niya." She then realized and told her officemate that the respondent was referring to her husband Rogelio, whose first wife died while giving birth to one of their children. When she stood up to approach the teller, she heard the respondent say: "Nandito ba ang asawa ni Roger?" She did not react immediately, but when she finished encashing her check she approached the respondent and told him: "Kung iinom ka, ilagay mo sa tiyan huwag sa ulo!" Respondent nodded his head and told her sarcastically: "Sabihin mo kay Roger, swerte siya." Complainant, already angry, walked away from the respondent and asked Bobadilla the respondent's name, to which he replied "Rojas." As she was about to leave the bank with her officemate, the respondent told her: "Lalasunin ka rin nun." She was so upset by the incident that she burst into tears as soon as she arrived at the office. She was then advised to file a complaint against the respondent, who she later discovered held a position at the Statistics Division at the same office where she was employed (the OCA). She and her husband then filed a joint administrative complaint against the respondent for uttering false, malicious and libelous statements against them, and for ridiculing her in front of their co-employees. She alleged that the incident not only caused her nervousness and anxiety, but also constituted grossly unbecoming conduct as an employee of the judiciary, especially of the Supreme Court–the highest Court of the land.

In his Comment dated January 3, 2002, the respondent admitted to the complainants' allegations, but contended that Rogelio was a friend with whom he exchanged jokes, "even sick ones." With this in mind, he claimed that he was only teasing, and that he jokingly said that Roger had "disposed" of his first wife, even though he knew that she actually died while giving birth. At the time he uttered these statements, the respondent did not realize that Ma. Elena would be offended. He claimed that he regretted the incident and offered his apologies to the spouses. He also extended his apologies to the Supreme Court for using up their valuable time with regard to this matter, and promised to conduct himself in a more suitable manner that is required of all Supreme Court employees.

On February 29, 2002, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. The manifestations of the parties submitting the case for resolution on the basis of pleadings already filed were noted in the Resolution of August 9, 2002. Note that another complaint was filed against the respondent, to wit: A.M. OCA IPI No. 99-04-OCA, entitled ""Liwayway G. Banigued vs. Exequiel C. Rojas"" for Grave Misconduct and Slander. The Court En Banc, in its Resolution dated January 18, 2002, resolved to require the respondent to comment thereon.

Section 40 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees mandates public officials to "xxx at all times respect the rights of others," and to "refrain from doing acts contrary to law, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest." This Court has held time and time again that a court employee, being a public servant, must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the court's good name and standing. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty, and must exhibit qualities that reflect ethical standards that are required not only by law, but also public policy.

The respondent's comments to the complaint were not simply made in bad taste. What is worse, he uttered these malicious statements, whether in jest or otherwise, at a public place and within the hearing distance of many people. This fact not only aggravated the anxiety and humiliation caused to the complainant. The lack of decorum, propriety and respect reflected by his actions also debase the public's regard for the very institution for which he works, which cannot be countenanced.

We, therefore, agree with the Court Administrator when he stated:

"xxx The Court has also admonished court personnel that their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice."

In view of the foregoing, this Court hereby imposes the penalty of REPRIMAND on the respondent Exequiel C. Rojas, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

 

X x x.