Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. 1062-CCC March 20, 1979
RE: RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF MRS. CECILIA MENDIETTA, Interpreter, Circuit Criminal Court, Pasig, Metro Manila.
R E S O L U T I O N
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
In a letter dated January 26, 1979,* Judge Onofre A. Villaluz of the Circuit Criminal Court, Seventh Judicial District (Pasig, Rizal), recommends the dismissal of his Court's Interpreter, Mrs. Cecilia Mendietta, for being notoriously undesirable in violation of General Order No. 14.
The Specific incident in support of the charge of notorious undesirability is that on January 24, 1977, at about 2:30 p.m., Mrs. Mendietta answered a telephone call and after asking who the caller was and the answer was it was Atty. Buena, she replied that she was "Senorita Malas". Upon investigation the next day by Judge Villaluz, she explained that because she had a previous call from somebody who said that he was a certain "Atty. Tsong Tsay Tong", she believed that it was the same pranckster who identified himself as Atty. Buena, so that jokingly, she also said that she was "Senorita Malas". When she was made to realize by officemates that the caller was Atty. Buena of the Supreme Court, she immediately apologized to the latter. In her own words, she said:
... noong una ho may tumawag Atty. Tsong Tsay Tong daw ho, akala ko ho nangloloko pa, humingi naman ho ako nang tawad ...
Upon the record, we believe that there is as yet no clear and definite showing that Mrs. Mendietta was critically lacking in courtesy in regards to superior officers. To dismiss her would be too drastic a punishment, considering specially the indication that, during the same telephone call, after realizing that the caller was not playing a joke, she apologized already.
However, Mrs. Mendietta should be made to understand that, as an employee of a Court of justice, she should always practice the virtue of courtesy and that there are way and means of dealing with molesting calls without causing an incident such as that which actually occurred.
ACCORDINGLY, the recommendation of Judge Onofre A. Villaluz for the dismissal from the service of Mrs. Cecilia Mendietta is denied, but she is hereby reprimanded for her discourtesy behavior with the warning that any similar act of discourtesy in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let this Resolution be noted in the personal record of Mrs. Cecilia Mendietta
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.
#Footnotes
* The letter-recommendation is addressed to Atty. Arturo Buena, Executive Officer, Supreme Court.
Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta
This is an administrative case, Republic of the Philippines v. Mendietta, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 20, 1979. The case involves the recommendation for dismissal from service of Mrs. Cecilia Mendietta, an Interpreter at the Circuit Criminal Court in Pasig, Metro Manila, for being notoriously undesirable in violation of General Order No. 14. The specific incident that supported the charge was when Mendietta answered a telephone call and, thinking it was a prank call, identified herself as "Senorita Malas" to the caller, who was later identified as Atty. Buena of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the recommendation for dismissal and instead reprimanded Mendietta, warning her that any similar act of discourtesy in the future will be dealt with more severely. The Court held that there was no clear and definite showing that Mendietta was critically lacking in courtesy towards superior officers, and that dismissing her would be too drastic a punishment.
Quick Answers
- What is Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta about?
- This is an administrative case, Republic of the Philippines v. Mendietta, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 20, 1979. The case involves the recommendation for dismissal from service of Mrs. Cecilia Mendietta, an Interpreter at the Circuit Criminal Court in Pasig, Metro Manila, for being notoriously undesirable in violation of General Order No. 14. The specific incident that supported the charge was when Mendietta answered a telephone call and, thinking it was a prank call, identified herself as "Senorita Malas" to the caller, who was later identified as Atty. Buena of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the recommendation for dismissal and instead reprimanded Mendietta, warning her that any similar act of discourtesy in the future will be dealt with more severely. The Court held that there was no clear and definite showing that Mendietta was critically lacking in courtesy towards superior officers, and that dismissing her would be too drastic a punishment.
- Which court decided Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta?
- Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta decided?
- Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta (A.M. No. 1062-CCC) was decided on Mar 20, 1979.
- What is the citation for Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta?
- Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta, A.M. No. 1062-CCC, Mar 20, 1979 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- A.M. No. 1062-CCC
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta, A.M. No. 1062-CCC, Mar 20, 1979 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1979). Re: Dismissal of Cecilia Mendietta (A.M. No. 1062-CCC). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/re-dismissal-of-cecilia-mendietta
Related Cases
- In Re: MendiettaA.M. No. 1052-CCC (Resolution) • Mar 20, 1979
- Re: Cecilia ButacanA.M. No. 12535-Ret (Resolution) • Apr 22, 2008
- Re: Habitual Tardiness of Ms. Cecilia L. AsiloA.M. No. 05-9-555-RTC (Resolution) • Oct 14, 2005
- Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. v. KayananG.R. No. L-30064 • Nov 26, 1970
- Agtarap v. AgtarapG.R. Nos. 177099 & 177192 • Jun 8, 2011
- Eduardo G. Agtarap vs. Sebastian Agtarap, et al./Sebastian Agtarap vs. Eduardo G. Agtarap, et al.G.R. No. 177099/G.R. No. 177192 • Jun 8, 2011
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case