Nate v. Ching

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-18-3793. November 22, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4326-P]

RODOLFO P. NATE, complainant,vs.CLERK OF COURT II CONCEPCION Z. CHING, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MANAOAG, PANGASINAN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 November 2021which reads as follows: aScITE

"A.M. No. P-18-3793 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4326-P] (Rodolfo P. Nate v. Clerk of Court II Concepcion Z. Ching, Municipal Trial Court, Manaoag, Pangasinan). — For the Court's consideration is the administrative case filed against respondent Concepcion Z. Ching (respondent), Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Manaoag, Pangasinan, by complainant Rodolfo P. Nate (Nate), for Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee and for Abuse of Authority.

The Antecedents

In his Sinumpaang Salaysay1 dated August 12, 2014, Nate narrated that at around 9:45 a.m. of April 5, 2012, he was driving his motorized tricycle along Rizal Street, Poblacion, Manaoag, Pangasinan, when he stopped due to heavy traffic. Suddenly, the vehicle in front backed up and hit his tricycle. Thereafter, the vehicle's driver, who turned out to be herein respondent, alighted and then slapped Nate, hitting him on his head and neck, just as Police Officer 2 Francisco Cardenas (PO2 Cardenas) and another police officer approached them. Respondent then uttered "Baoninayo! Ag yo ak kaba't diya?"(Putang ina ninyo! Putang ina ninyo! Hindi nyo ba ako kilala dito?) Respondent then tried to push the two (2) police officers in an attempt to attack Nate.

Nate then went to the police station to report the incident. While at the station, respondent followed and slapped him again. She also yelled at the police officer present saying, "Ag yo ak kaba't diva?"(Hindi nyo ba ako kilala dito?), as she ordered them to stop making a record of the complaint against her. When Nate was leaving the police station, respondent again attempted to slap him but she was prevented by the police officer. From there, Nate proceeded to the hospital to have himself checked and to get a medical certificate. 2 He then filed a criminal case 3 for slight physical injuries 4 against respondent before the Prosecutor's Office and an Information 5 was thereafter filed in court. Nate also alleged that respondent even harassed the two (2) police officers — witnesses and even tried to convince Police Chief Inspector Noel C. Espinosa to twist the incident. 6 When the latter refused, respondent allegedly said, "Takot lang kayo kasi Iglesia ni Kristo si Rodolfo Nate."7

When respondent learned that a case was filed against her by Nate, she also filed a case 8 against the latter for Reckless Imprudence 9 resulting in damage to property. Both cases were heard before the station of respondent at the MTC of Manaoag, Pangasinan. According to Nate, he also learned that respondent even had the docket number of his case changed in order to make it appear that she was the one who filed a complaint first. 10

The cases were initially assigned to Judge Giovanni E. Palma but the latter inhibited from the case, considering that respondent was his Clerk of Court. Eventually, Judge Camilo Asuncion, who was also a good friend and former superior of respondent, was designated to hear the said cases. 11

Nate further narrated in his Salaysay that during the mediation of one of the cases, respondent again raised her voice, verbally abused him, and accused him of lying, before she walked out of the proceedings in utter disrespect of the mediator. 12 She also withheld the notice of arraignment of the case against him until the same day of the scheduled arraignment. 13 The hearings of the cases were also suspended several times as respondent would either withhold the service of court orders or work on the settings of the cases with the help of other court employees. 14

Nate's allegations were corroborated by the two (2) police officers witnesses, PO2 Cardenas and PO2 Glenn Prey Eublera, in their Affidavits 15 both dated April 25, 2012.

For her part, respondent averred in her Comment 16 that the two (2) cases arose out of a very minor vehicular collision on April 5, 2012. According to respondent, Nate concocted varying, false, inconsistent and exaggerated versions of the incident. 17 She averred that what truly transpired that time was that she was on board her Mazda 2 car with plate number TLQ667, which was horizontally parked in front of her house at Rizal Avenue, Poblacion, Manaoag, Pangasinan. She was waiting for the cars to pass so that she can maneuver backwards and leave to visit the church as it was Holy Week that time. 18 However, he heard a loud voice saying "Nala," which means "hit" in English. Immediately, PO2 Cardenas and a certain "PO Tagulao" approached and informed her that a tricycle just passed and grazed the back portion of her car. 19 When she checked the back of her car, there was, indeed, a long scratch. She said she felt offended as the tricycle driver did not even bother to stop and apologize. 20 Hence, she asked PO2 Cardenas and PO Tagulao to assist her to go after the fleeing tricycle driver. 21 Since there was a traffic build up, they were able to catch up with the driver who turned out to be Nate. When she confronted him and demanded an explanation, Nate allegedly was very arrogant and even insisted that it was she who hit his tricycle. 22 She also denied cursing and slapping Nate and insisted that these were merely concocted by the latter. 23 Respondent also pointed out that Nate could not even show any damage to the tricycle and that it was her car that sustained damage from the incident which, thus, makes her the one who has a legitimate claim for damages. 24

Respondent further denied having anything to do with the docket number of the case as it was the court's Junior Process Server who assigns the same. 25 She also insisted that she had nothing to do with the delays and postponement of hearings. 26

On March 2, 2016, the Court issued a Resolution 27 referring the case to the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Thereafter, on July 26, 2016, Nate filed a motion to dismiss 28 before the Office of the Executive Judge on the ground that the controversy was merely a result of misunderstanding. Nate also averred that he and respondent had already settled the same on the vehicular accident and that he had already submitted an affidavit of desistance in the criminal case he filed against respondent. 29

The Report and Recommendation

On May 26, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued its report 30 recommending that the complaint against respondent be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. According to the OCA, a complainant's affidavit of desistance does not ipso facto result in the termination of an administrative case against an erring court employee, as the Court's disciplinary authority cannot be dependent on the private arrangement between parties. The OCA also gave credit to the affidavits executed by the two (2) police officers attesting to the fact that respondent indeed slapped Nate, and that she also displayed arrogance by shouting and uttering foul words against him in public. By her actions, the OCA believed that respondent was using her court position to enforce what she wanted, which was to harass and intimidate Nate. 31 The OCA recommended, thus —

It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:

1. The instant administrative complaint against respondent Concepcion Z. Ching [(Ching)], Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Manaoag, Pangasinan, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and

2. Respondent Ching be found GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee and be SUSPENDED for one (1) year without pay, with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court." 32

The Court's Ruling

Finding the report and recommendation of the OCA to be substantially supported by evidence, law, and jurisprudence, the Court resolves to adopt and approve the same.

The Affidavits executed by the two (2) police officers, as well as the certificate of Police Officer Celzo Z. De Guzman of the Manaoag Police Station, stating that on the said date, Nate appeared to request the traffic incident to be put on record and that respondent came to the police station and slapped Nate, 33 which indeed, prove the kind of conduct respondent displayed in dealing with Nate. Respondent's denial on the matter clearly has no leg to stand on amidst the statements made in writing by the police officer attesting to the fact that she slapped Nate in public while acting arrogantly and uttering unsavory words against the latter.

It is a consistent reminder among court personnel that the image of a court, as a true temple of justice, is reflected in the conduct, whether official or otherwise, of the men and women working thereat. 34 Judicial employees and personnel are expected to be living examples of uprightness to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community. 35 Respondent, as Clerk of Court II of the MTC of Manaoag, Pangasinan, violated this reminder; hence, she should be sanctioned not only to remind her of her duties and conduct, but also to answer for the embarrassment she had brought upon to the Judiciary.

As the OCA succinctly put it:

As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to conduct herself at all times with propriety and restraint. Certainly, respondent must not use her public office in order to oppress or abuse others. She must be reminded that she is part and parcel of the administration of justice and, therefore, whether on or off duly, she should set the example for obedience and respect of the law. 36

The case of Abos v. Borromeo, 37 citing Marquez v. Clores-Ramos, 38 holds that:

It cannot be overemphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he 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. This is because 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. Thus, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and every one in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice. 39

Moreover, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees mandates the state policy to promote a high standard of ethics in public service, and enjoins public officials and employees to discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity and competence; and must at all times respect the rights of others and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order and public interest.

Likewise, it should be noted that this is not the first time respondent has been administratively charged. She had also been suspended for a period of six months for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents in A.M. No. P-06-2245; and there are two (2) other cases which were dismissed by the OCA.

Indeed, respondent did not live up to her commitment to uphold the image of the Judiciary despite being knowledgeable of the ethical standards set for court employees.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds respondent CONCEPCION Z. CHING GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee and is hereby SUSPENDEDfor a period of one (1) year without pay, with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or of any similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court. Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in respondent's personal record.

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.

2.Id. at 7.

3.Id. at 8.

4.Id. at 3.

5.Id. at 9.

6.Id. at 3.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 41.

9.Id. at 10.

10.Id. at 3-4.

11.Id. at 4.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 4-5.

15.Id. at 12-13.

16.Id. at 28-39. Dated November 17, 2014.

17.Id. at 30.

18.Id.

19.Id.

20.Id.

21.Id. at 31.

22.Id.

23.Id.

24.Id. at 32.

25.Id. at 33.

26.Id. at 35.

27.Id. at 61-62.

28.Id. at 66-67.

29.Id.

30.Id. at 75-81.

31.Id. at 77-78.

32.Id. at 80-81.

33.Id. at 78-79.

34.Mataga v. Rosete, 483 Phil. 235 (2004).

35.Id. at 242.

36.Rollo, p. 78.

37. 765 Phil. 10 (2015).

38. 391 Phil. 1 (2000).

39.Abos v. Borromeo, supra note 37 at 19-20.