All employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, must always be guided by strict propriety and decorum in their conduct in order to merit and maintain the public’s respect for and trust in the judiciary. This case of a Clerk of Court of a Municipal Trial Circuit Court (MTCC clerk) who was administratively charged, among others, of harassment and grave misconduct by 13 employees in the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), illustrates this rule. It also explains what constitutes simple misconduct.
The MTCC clerk was apparently not personally close to the 13 employees in the OCC (complainants). He had been suspicious and irritable in dealing with them professionally, thus affecting the smooth and efficient discharge of the functions in the OCC.
In the investigation of their complaints by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Executive Judge, complainants testified that the MTCC clerk had shouted at and uttered vindictive words against them and even humiliated them while doing their job and attending to the needs of the public. The MTCC clerk could not rebut such testimonies. To exonerate himself he could only impute malicious motive to the said complainants, averring that they merely had an axe to grind against him and that they had defied, disobeyed and refused to recognize him as head of the OCC-MTCC.
After investigation and despite the fact that the MTCC clerk opted to avail himself of early retirement, the Executive Judge found him guilty of failing to conduct himself with propriety, moral righteousness and decorum by scolding, embarrassing and for being abrasive to his subordinates. Was the Executive Judge correct?
Yes. The explanations of the MTCC clerk do not excuse his actions. His acts are absolutely unbecoming of a court employee who is expected to display proper decorum. The behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility.
High strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service, where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. More so is such conduct expected from court employees, since they have to earn and keep the public’s respect for and confidence in the judicial service. This standard of conduct must apply to the court employees dealing not only with the public, but also with their co-workers. How can court employees be expected to treat the public who are mostly complete strangers to them, when they cannot accord the same treatment to one another with whom they closely work on a daily basis?
Agents of the law should refrain from the use of language that is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. Judicial employees are expected to accord every due respect not only to their superiors, but also to others and to their rights at all times. These norms are ever so essential in preserving the good name and integrity of the judiciary.
A clerk of court, as the administrative assistant of the presiding judge, is an important functionary of the judiciary. His administrative functions are vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice. He should be a role model for other court employees to emulate in the performance of duties as well as in the conduct and behavior of a public servant. Evidently the MTCC clerk here failed to observe proper decorum in his dealings with his subordinates and to serve as model for other court employees. His irritable and haughty behavior towards complainants affected the latter’s performance which, in turn, harmed the integrity of the entire OCC-MTCC.
While complainants may have indeed defied and disobeyed him, he should have taken the higher ground and resisted the urge to retaliate with similarly disrespectful behavior. He would not gain the respect and obedience of his subordinates by merely demanding the same and wielding an iron hand in the office.
Hence the MTCC clerk failed to live up to the norms of conduct demanded of his position. He should be held liable for simple misconduct which generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate and intentional purpose. He should be fined equivalent to his three month’s salary to be deducted from his retirement benefits (Leyrit et. al. vs Solas etc, A.M. P-08-2567 and P-08-2568, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA, 668)
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net