Guevara-Arambulo v. Llanera

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-21-010. November 18, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4974-P]

ATTY. MARY MELANYN GUEVARA-ARAMBULO, CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN, BRANCH 49, complainant, vs. GLENDA C. LLANERA, UTILITY WORKER 1, SAME COURT, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2021 which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-21-010 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4974-P (Atty. Mary Melanyn Guevara-Arambulo, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Branch 49, complainant v. Glenda C. Llanera, Utility Worker 1, same court, respondent).

This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint 1 filed by Atty. Mary Melanyn Guevara-Arambulo (complainant), Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Branch 49, against Glenda C. Llanera (respondent), Utility Worker I of the same court, for misconduct, insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Antecedents

Complainant claims that the following events led her to file the complaint against respondent on October 2, 2019. Several days after complainant began working at Branch 49, she held a staff meeting on May 21, 2018. During the meeting, she reminded the staff of office rules, such as: the duty to attend the flag raising and flag retreat ceremonies, to ask permission before leaving the premises of the Hall of Justice, and to avoid going to malls and other public places during office hours. A week after the meeting, respondent confronted complainant and told her, "alam ko naman na ako ang pinaparinggan mo nung nagpa-meeting ka, dahil siniraan na nila ako sa iyo." In response, complainant assured respondent that she was not referring to anyone in particular and that she does not easily believe in gossip. 2

On June 20, 2018, Branch 49's former Assisting Judge, Hon. Arnel P. Cezar (Judge Cezar), Presiding Judge of Branch 163 of the RTC of Coron, Palawan, invited the staff of Branch 49 to have lunch with his own staff. When Judge Cezar asked if they had any problems with their co-employees, respondent stood up and accused complainant of favoritism. Respondent continued to yell hysterically at complainant and blurted "buwisit ka" and ''punyeta ka" despite being told by Judge Cezar to stop and calm down. Complainant did not retaliate as respondent is older than her and in respect of Judge Cezar. Respondent stopped with her tirades only after Judge Jose Benjamin J. Usman, their former Acting Presiding Judge, entered and joined them. To avoid further untoward events, complainant took an early leave a month before giving birth. 3

On June 20, 2019, complainant instructed respondent to do a general cleaning of the courtroom and the judge's chambers in anticipation of the appointment of their new presiding judge. On June 24, 2019, complainant noticed that the judge's chambers remained unclean and in disarray, i.e., there was a dead cockroach under a chair and the old printers and typewriters were left strewn inside the chambers despite instructions to place them inside the storage room. Since respondent was not around at the time, and to avoid another confrontation, complainant asked Jenna Erfe (Erfe), a local government employee detailed at the court, to clean the judge's chambers. The following day, respondent ignored complainant every time she was called. Complainant remained calm and asked respondent why the supply boxes were still in the judge's chambers, to which the latter rudely answered, "hindi ko alam kung bakit andun pa yun." Complainant coolly replied that respondent should not treat her that way and, besides, it was the former's birthday. Respondent then sarcastically told respondent, "ikaw pa maba-bad trip eh ako nga ang may problema."4 Sometime thereafter, Judge Paz Soledad R. Rodriguez-Cayetano (Judge Rodriguez-Cayetano) was appointed Presiding Judge of Branch 49.

On July 1, 2019, complainant observed that respondent was scowling and upon seeing her, glared at her, and unceremoniously left the office. Thereafter, she saw Erfe wiping her tears. When asked why she was crying, Erfe recounted that respondent confronted her and told her that she was not serving any purpose at the office because she was of no help in cleaning the court. Complainant reassured Erfe that this was false. Actually, she often helped in cleaning the court and the judge's chambers since respondent would loaf instead of discharging her duties. 5

On July 8, 2019, complainant met with all the regular employees of the court to discuss their Individual Performance Commitment Ratings (IPCR). Complainant claimed that she gave respondent a "satisfactory" rating even though respondent deserved a lower rating in her targets which include stitching court records and cleaning the office. As such, complainant reminded respondent to improve her performance at work. This prompted respondent to lash out at Erfe. After insulting and humiliating Erfe in front of some of the staff inside the office, respondent directed her ire towards complainant. Respondent accused complainant of falsifying the daily time logs, threatened to report her to the Court, and even insulted her family. Complainant decided to leave the office, as it was already past 5:00 p.m., instead of enduring respondent's disrespect. 6

The following day, complainant went to Atty. Glenda Josol, Clerk of Court of Branch 47, to seek clarification on the rating of a utility staff. Upon returning to their office, complainant heard respondent making derogatory comments about her yet again. 7 Respondent also instigated discord between complainant and another member of the court staff, 8 and refused to calm down. As respondent was very angry and continued ranting, complainant rushed to the Office of the Clerk of Court and asked for help from Atty. Jyl Lauros. Complainant went back to their office only after respondent had left. She reported the incident immediately to Judge Rodriguez-Cayetano, who called a meeting the next day to discuss each staff member's job description and complainant's role as the staff's supervisor. 9

In addition to the events described above, complainant added that in July of 2019, she discovered that respondent went to the office on a Sunday, May 5, 2019, without permission, and brought out a folder; in contravention of her express instruction for the staff to secure a pass in case they will go to the office during weekends. She gave this instruction to ensure that the evidence for controversial cases in the court's custody remain secure. More, when she called respondent's attention regarding the matter in the presence of Judge Rodriguez-Cayetano, respondent berated her for conniving with/influencing the security guards. 10 Aside from this incident, there was an instance when respondent sprayed insect repellent in the office during office hours knowing that complainant and some of the staff were inside. 11

Complainant alleged that these circumstances made her lose her trust in respondent. As custodian of court records and property, she does "not feel safe having [respondent in the] branch" as the latter "was able to surreptitiously [bring] out property" from the office. More importantly, respondent does not recognize complainant's authority and disrupts "the peaceful working environment" to the detriment not only of complainant, but all of the court staff. 12

In the October 10, 2019 1st Indorsement 13 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), respondent was directed to comment on the complaint.

In her Komento na may Kasamang Kontra-Reklamo, 14 respondent asserted that she has been in the judiciary for more than 24 years and has high respect for the judges, clerks of court, and lawyers. Respondent refuted complainant's allegations that a meeting was held on May 21, 2018, as complainant took her oath that day and went home immediately after. She also pointed out the improbability of her confronting complainant as the latter had just assumed her position as Branch Clerk of Court.

Respondent offered her own version of events to refute Complainant's allegations. She averred that during the June 18, 2018 lunch meeting with Judge Cezar, it was actually complainant who became hysterical after she simply requested complainant not to be so strict with the court staff. On the same day, she apologized to complainant but her efforts to patch things up between them were rebuffed; and complainant tried to hit her with a cellphone while repeatedly telling her, "akala mo, mabait ako, matapang ako," in front of litigants. After the incident, complainant also quarrelled with one interpreter in Coron and with someone from the Prosecutor's Office. 15

Upon complainant's return from maternity leave, they agreed to start anew and forget the past incidents. However, complainant warned respondent not to expect that they would no longer have any misunderstanding. Despite their agreement, complainant continued insulting respondent. Respondent just ignored complainant's outbursts and did her job to avoid further incidents between them. Regarding the instruction to clean the judge's chambers, respondent countered that she did what was instructed and even asked assistance from one of the clerks to arrange the boxes inside the steel cabinets. They left one box containing supplies intentionally out of the cabinets, but placed it neatly beside a cabinet, and that the real reason for complainant's anger was the dead cockroach. Thus, when complainant blurted "wag mo akong babadtripin. Birthday ko pa naman ngayon," and asked her if she had any problem when she did not immediately answer why the box was left inside the judge's chambers, she answered "bakit kita babadtripin at ako pa ang may problema." Feeling unwell for crying due to the unpleasant exchange, respondent asked for permission from complainant if she could go home early. In reply, complainant called her conceited and told her "sige ate umuwi ka na, kung may sakit kang diabetes, anxiety disorder at highblood, magpacheck-up ka."16

On July 8, 2019, complainant told respondent that the reasons for her "satisfactory" rating in her IPCR were her failure to clean during Saturdays, the dead cockroach, and the box left inside the judge's chambers. Respondent explained to complainant that there was no need for her to go to the court and clean on Saturdays because she performs the job every Friday afternoon and Monday morning. She asked for consideration but complainant still gave her a rating of 3. Due to frustration, respondent later requested complainant to change her target time from 7:30 to 7:50 a.m. and then bluntly asked why complainant could not be lenient when she herself would write 1:00 p.m. on her daily time record when, in fact, she always arrived at a later time. 17

On the allegation that she went to the court on a Sunday evening without permission, respondent reasoned that she went there to retrieve a folder her niece needed it the following day. She denied that she was loafing during office hours and alleged that Erfe's claims were made up for complainant's benefit. 18

Finally, respondent claimed that complainant had many enemies even before she was assigned at Branch 49; and that she bragged about coming from a wealthy family in Manila and having connections at the Supreme Court. She added that she does not fault Azenith A. Burgos and Charmae A. Saulon for making false statements against her to support complainant's charges as their employment and assignment to the branch were influenced by complainant. She posited that complainant should be held administratively liable for false entries in her daily time records, hiring multiple casual employees who are siblings, and allowing litigants to use the photocopying machine and government supplies for a fee. 19

Recommendation of the OCA

In a Memorandum 20 dated October 13, 2020, the OCA found respondent guilty of simple discourtesy in the course of official duties and recommended that she be reprimanded and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or any similar act would be dealt with more severely. The OCA found that respondent's act of shouting at complainant without due regard for the latter's position exhibited discourtesy and disrespect not just toward her superior but to the court as well; and that going to the court on a Sunday without asking permission from complainant displayed her utter disregard of the policies of the court. Since this is respondent's first offense, the OCA recommended the penalty of reprimand pursuant to the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS). As to the other charges, the OCA found no clear showing that respondent deliberately refused to obey complainant and insufficient evidence that respondent was administratively liable. 21

Apropos the allegations against complainant, the OCA opined that complainant should have restrained herself from quarrelling with respondent as she is expected to carry out her duties, including correcting the mistakes of her subordinates, with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. As such, she should be reminded to be more circumspect in dealing with her subordinates and to exercise self-restraint whenever she is confronted with rude or discourteous behaviour in the workplace. 22

Ruling of the Court

The Court adopts and accepts the findings of the OCA. However, the recommended penalty should be modified to admonition with warning in the light of several mitigating circumstances present in this case.

The Court finds that there is no substantial evidence to support the charges of misconduct, gross insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against respondent; but that her acts constitute simple discourtesy in the course of official duties.

It is the duty of court personnel to carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous manner as possible. 23 At all times, employees of the judiciary are expected to accord respect to the person and the rights of another, even to a co-employee. Their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity. 24

Complainant and respondent offered their own versions of the altercations between them. Although both of them insist that the other was at fault and initiated the rift between them, what is apparent is the animosity between them, as substantiated by the affidavits of their co-workers in the branch. Even though respondent denied the allegations against her, she admitted that due to her frustration with the low IPCR rating that complainant gave her, she pointed out the dissonance, amidst complainant's strictness between the performance of her duties and the alleged false entries in the daily time records. Moreover, complainant's narration of the events of July 8, 2019, were corroborated by four different employees of the branch. 25 Although respondent also submitted affidavits from her co-workers, the statements therein did not contain any assertion to support her own version of what happened and were, rather, only limited to affirmations that respondent performed her duties and responsibilities. 26

Without a doubt, respondent failed to live up to the ethical norm expected of an employee of the judiciary. Shouting at complainant within the court premises in the presence of other court employees clearly exhibits discourtesy and disrespect, not only towards complainant but to the court as well. 27 Even assuming that respondent was provoked by complainant's actions, her conduct remains inexcusable. Court employees are expected to be well-mannered, civil, and considerate in their actuations, both in their relations with co-workers and the transacting public. Boorishness, foul language and any misbehavior in court premises must always be avoided. 28

Time and again, the Court has stressed that fighting or misunderstanding is a disgraceful sight 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. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners, and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. Their behavior and actuations must be characterized by propriety and decorum, and should at all times embody prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. 29

Simple discourtesy in the course of official duties is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one day to 30 days for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense, according to the RACCS. It is considered a light charge punishable by a fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; censure; reprimand; and/or admonition with warning, pursuant to Secs. 24 30 and 25 (C), 31 Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC. 32

In the determination of penalties, the Court considers circumstances which may serve as mitigating factors, such as physical fitness, habituality, length of service, and humanitarian and equitable consideration, among others. 33 The Court notes that this is respondent's first offense in her more than 24 years of service in the judiciary.

Taking these circumstances into consideration, the Court holds the penalty of admonition with warning as proper, considering that this is respondent's first infraction after more than two decades in the service. This penalty is in accord with the penalties provided under Rule 140, as amended, and not prejudicial to respondent compared with the penalties provided in the RACCS. 34

As regards the counter charges against complainant, the Court agrees with the OCA that no substantial evidence was offered to support the allegations. Other than bare assertions, respondent did not offer any proof that complainant committed the acts that she had complained of. Nevertheless, complainant should be reminded to be more circumspect in her dealings with subordinates and to exercise self-restraint whenever she is confronted with rude or discourteous behavior in the workplace.

The Court looks with great disfavor upon display of animosity by any court employee and exhorts every court personnel to act with strict propriety and proper decorum to earn public trust in the Judiciary. Colleagues in the Judiciary, including those occupying the lowliest position, are entitled to basic courtesy and respect. In discharging its constitutional duty of supervising lower courts and their personnel, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the Judiciary is composed essentially of human beings who have differing personalities, outlooks, and attitudes; and who are naturally vulnerable to human weaknesses. Nevertheless, the Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that court personnel must not only be, but also perceived to be, free from any impropriety — with respect not only to their duties in the judicial branch, but also do their behavior anywhere else. 35

WHEREFORE, Glenda C. Llanera, Utility Worker I, Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Branch 49, is found ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE for Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, and is hereby ADMONISHED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or any similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Mary Melanyn Guevara-Arambulo, Clerk of Court of the same RTC branch, Palawan, is hereby REMINDED to be more circumspect in her dealings with subordinates and to exercise self-restraint whenever she is confronted with rude or discourteous behavior in the workplace.

SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-7.

2.Id. at 2.

3.Id. at 3.

4.Id.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 3-4. The following conversation took place between complainant and respondent, as alleged by complainant:

Respondent: Atty. yung [nilagay] ko dyan sa target palitan mo ng oras! Ilagay mo pag Monday 7:30 ako maglilinis at sa ibang araw 7:50 ng umaga! Hindi rin ako sigurado kung pipirmahan ko yan!

Complainant: Okay, sige ate.

Respondent: Eh ikaw nga dinadaya mo DTR mo! Dumadating ka 1:30 ng hapon linalagay mo 1:00! Isusumbong kita sa Supreme Court. Sa akin walang mawawala, utility lang ako pero sayo marami kasi abugado ka! Alam yan ng lahat ng tao dito na dinadaya mo yung logbook!

Complainant: Oo ate alam ng lahat dito na sa umaga maaga ako pumapasok at sa hapon 1:30 ako bumabalik at linalagay ko 1:00. Alam din yan ni Court Ad Marquez (Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez), Atty. Pabello (Atty. Caridad A. Pabello), Judge Mon (Judge Ramon Chito R. Mendoza, our former acting presiding judge) at ni Judge Paz (Judge Paz Soledad R. Rodriguez-Cayetano, our present presiding judge). Dahil nag-a-avail ako ng Magna Carta.

Respondent: Bakit may sulat ka ba sa Supreme Court?

Complainant: Anong sulat? Wala naman yan sa batas ha. Bev (Atty. Beverly Z. Belandres, our Legal Researcher) abugado ka, paki explain naman sa kanya yung magna carta.

Respondent: Anong explain explain, wala akong pakikinggan kahit kaninong explanation!

Atty. Belandres: Tama na yan Ate Glenda.

Complainant: Narinig nyo mga sinasabi nya ha. Hihingi ako ng salaysay sa inyo, ilagay nyo lang kung anong perception nyo sa ginagawa nya.

Respondent: Gusto mo sabay pa tayong magreklamo sa Supreme Court eh!

Complainant: Ate, saan ka ba nanggagaling at galit na galit ka? Gusto mo ba ng rating na 5?

Respondent: Sa hirap! Purkit mayaman kayo akala nyo na kung sino kayo! Pare pareho lang tayong empleyado dito!

To support her narration of what transpired on July 8, 2018, complainant submitted the Malayang Pinagsamang Salaysay (rollo, pp. 27-28) of Azenith S. Burgos, Rhoner E. Felizarte, and Charmae A. Saulon, all employees of Branch 49, and the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Erfe (rollo, pp. 29-31).

Complainant sought the opinion of the OCA regarding her utilization of the provisions of the Expanded Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009 on lactation periods for nursing mothers (rollo, pp. 21-22). On September 6, 2019, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva replied and opined that "[e]xtended lunchbreaks per se are not among the benefits of nursing mothers under RA 10028 and its IRR. Nevertheless, considering the foregoing, you may avail of the benefit of break interval and have your lunch break in succession in lieu of the extended lunch break you requested. Please note that your immediate superior must be duly notified before you leave your station to avail of the break intervals (rollo, p. 33).

7.Id. at 4. Respondent told the staff: "Nagsumbong na naman sya kay Atty. Glenda, pati sa pamilya nya magsusumbong yan! Yung bag nya, hindi pa naayos, lumabas na sya! Inoorasan ko kaya sya tuwing lumalabas! Linalabas pa nya minsan mga court records sa ibang branch para magtanong bawal yun! Ayan may computer naman sya nagtatanong pa sya sa iba!

8.Id. Respondent told Butch Belmonte, the Process Server, "ayan Kuya Butch, hindi ka pa nag reretire, hinahanapan ka na ng kapalit ni Attorney," to which the latter replied, "hanggang wala pa ako sa hukay hindi ako mapapalitan."

9.Id.

10. According to complainant, she requested the head of the security of the Hall of Justice to provide a certified copy of the logbook to verify if respondent performed her tasks as her responsibilities included cleaning the office on Saturdays; id. at 5.

11.Id. at 4-5.

12.Id. at 5.

13.Id. at 37.

14.Id. at 38-44.

15.Id. at 39.

16.Id. at 39-40.

17.Id. at 41.

18.Id. at 40 and 42.

19.Id. at 41-42 and 44. In her Dagdag Komento, respondent denied claims of Erfe; id. at 89-93.

20.Id. at 94-102. The OCA recommended the following: 1) the instant administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent; 2) respondent be found guilty of simple discourtesy in the course of official duties and be meted the penalty to reprimand with stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act will be dealt with more severely; and 3) complainant be reminded to be more circumspect in her dealings with her subordinates and exercise self-restraint whenever she is confronted with rude or discourteous behavior in the workplace.

21.Id. at 100-102.

22.Id. at 101.

23. Section 2, Canon IV — Performance of Duties, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, effective June 1, 2004.

24.Atty. Alconera v. Pallanan, 725 Phil. 1, 17 (2014), citing Court Personnel of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court-San Carlos City v. Llamas, 488 Phil. 62, 71 (2004).

25.See rollo, pp. 24-31.

26.Id. at 80-81.

27.Wee v. Bunao, Jr., 646 Phil. 64, 72 (2010).

28. See Judge Barcena v. Abadilla, 804 Phil. 21, 38-39 (2017).

29.Id. at 39; citations omitted.

30. Section 24 reads:

Section 24. Light Charges. — Light charges include:

1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;

2. Gambling in public;

3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his or her court;

4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports; and

5. Light offenses under the Civil Service Laws and Rules (emphasis supplied)

31. A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC dated October 2, 2018 (Resolution).

32. Establishment of the Judicial Integrity Board and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office and Amendments to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court (July 7, 2020), effective August 16, 2020.

33. See Office of the Court Administrator v. Bravo, 827 Phil. 673, 679 (2018); see also Office of the Court Administrator v. Egipto, Jr., 824 Phil. 757, 759-760 (2018), citing Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, 608 Phil. 334, 346-347 (2009).

34. See Flores v. Hipolito, OCA-IPI No. 10-3450-P. Approved by the En Banc on May 11, 2021.

35.Atty. Alconera v. Pallanan, supra note 24, at 18, citing Court Personnel of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court-San Carlos City v. Llamas, supra note 24, at 71-72.