EN BANC
[A.M. No. 16-07-03-CTA. July 10, 2018.]
RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, CONCERNING THE LETTER DATED JUNE 1, 2016 FROM THE JUDICIARY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES [JUDEA]
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJULY 10, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 16-07-03-CTA (Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, Court of Tax Appeals, Concerning the letter dated June 1, 2016 from the Judiciary Employees Association of the Philippines [JUDEA]). — The instant administrative matter charges Amiel C. De Vera (De Vera), President, Association of Court of Appeals Employees, and Michael C. Balon (Balon), President, Sandiganbayan Employees Association, hereinafter collectively referred to as respondents, of discourtesy against the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) by using denunciatory, damaging, and disrespectful language in addressing the court and also of interfering or influencing the administration of justice relative to CTA-EROD No. 2015-01 and Petition for Certification Election docketed as BLR-O-CE-21-9-3-15.
In a Letter 1 dated June 1, 2016, addressed to the CTA Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario (CTA Presiding Justice Del Rosario), respondents, along with the other JUDEA officers, namely: Maurino V. Aguilar (Aguilar), Acting President; Erwin D. Ocson (Ocson), Deputy Secretary-General and President, Supreme Court Employees Association; and Atty. Rene B. Enciso (Atty. Enciso), President, Supreme Court Assembly of Lawyers and Employees, wrote:
[T]he [Tax Court Employees Association] TCEA and rank and file employees should receive the recognition and respect that they deserve. But we have learned that this is not the case at the [CTA]. We have learned that the Honorable Court committed the following:
a. Non-recognition of TCEA as the sole and exclusive negotiating agent of the rank and employees of the CTA per Civil Service Commission Certificate of Accreditation No. 924 issued on September 24, 2013. This means that the association has fulfilled all the necessary requirements to represent the rank and file employees of CTA;
a.1. No representation from the rank and file employees in strategic Agency committees especially those affecting the rank and file employees;
a.2. The CTA management based on orders of the CTA court en banc does not allow the use of CTA facilities by the TCEA for union activities;
a.3. Denying the request of TCEA in conducting and attending association activities.
b. Asking the list of TCEA members with their signatures opposite their names, and that by signing, the member confirms that he/she had voluntarily applied for membership in the organization and the date of their membership;
c. Asking the TCEA of their process of choosing the association's representative to the committees created by Agency;
d. Threatening the members of TCEA to withdraw their membership. As a result, 30 members of TCEA have officially withdrawn their membership from the Association;
e. Non-formulation of CNA negotiating panel from the CTA management despite the submission of TCEA of their pre-ratified Collective Negotiation Agreement proposal to the CTA management before the one year expiration set by the Public Sector Labor Management Council (PSLMC). The pre-ratified CNA proposal was submitted by TCEA in 2014 but as of date, there is no reply from the CTA management;
f. Filing of Petition for Certification Election through Atty. Danilo Fernando, Executive Clerk of Court of CTA to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) against TCEA. This notwithstanding the fact that there is no other existing registered union or association inside the CTA except for TCEA. On November 3, 2015, the BLR has dismissed the C.E. filed by the CTA management. But the CTA management did not stop from their previous failed action and went to the Public Sector Labor Management Council (PSLMC) to file a Motion for Reconsideration[;]
g. Non-recognition of the approved authority issued by the Office of the Chief Justice for TCEA leaders to attend the 10th National Congress of COURAGE on April 4-8, 2016. Instead, questioned the authenticity of the letter signed by acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio[;]
h. Failure to implement justice in the case of Mr. Adiran P. Manaois, Vice President of TCEA on what he believed is a clear manifestation of harassment against him by his immediate supervisor and other CTA Justices[;]
i. Forcing Mr. Adrian Manaois to withdraw his case filed against his superior at the Office of Court Administrator[;]
j. Withholding the benefits of Mr. Adrian P. Manaois due him without due process[; and]
k. The abovementioned actions committed by the Honorable Court have huge effects on the rank and file employees of the CTA. The work place should have good working conditions to generate best performance from the Organization. But the rank and file employees of the [CTA] do not receive the good working conditions at the work place they deserve.
We would like to inform you that you have violated the following rules and that your actions are tantamount to unfair labor practice, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
We strongly call to stop this kind of harassment and unfair labor practice by the management on the members and officers of TCEA. The TCEA deserves to be respected and recognized. 2 (Emphasis ours)
In its Resolution No. 05-2016 3 dated June 13, 2016, the CTA En Banc stated that the said letter is "noticeably accusatory in tone and impolite in language." The CTA En Banc further noted that the said letter was "obviously intended to influence" the results of pending administrative case and certification election case above-cited. Thus, the CTA En Banc resolved to refer the matter to this Court, requesting that the said JUDEA officers be restrained from using denunciatory, damaging, and disrespectful language in addressing members of the judiciary and from interfering or influencing with the administration of justice as regards pending cases, without prejudice to any disciplinary action that the Court may deem appropriate to take against said officers.
In a Letter 4 dated June 21, 2016 signed by CTA Presiding Justice Del Rosario, addressed to the Chief Justice, the above-cited CTA En Banc Resolution was brought to this Court's attention.
In its Resolution 5 dated June 6, 2017, the Court En Banc resolved to refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation, report and recommendation.
In a Memorandum 6 dated July 10, 2017, the OCA recommended that respondents be directed to comment on CTA Presiding Justice Del Rosario's Letter dated June 21, 2017. Insofar as Ocson and Atty. Enciso are concerned, the OCA recommended that the matter be referred to the Complaints and Investigation Division of the Office Administrative Services for its proper disposition, considering that Ocson and Atty. Enciso are Supreme Court employees and the authority to investigate complaints against them is with the said office. As for Aguilar, considering that he is already retired from service since June 11, 2016, the OCA noted that the Court was already stripped of its administrative authority over him.
In a Resolution 7 dated August 1, 2017, this Court adopted the OCA's recommendation.
In their respective Comments, 8 respondents denied the allegations that their subject letter contained denunciatory, damaging, and disrespectful language. De Vera averred that the letter merely contained an enumeration of the various perceived violations of the rights of the rank and file employees of the CTA as guaranteed under Executive Order No. 180. He further averred that they merely brought to the attention of CTA Presiding Justice Del Rosario the concerns of the TCEA leaders to prevent any perceived unfair labor practice. 9 Balon added that they did not have any malicious intent in signing the letter and only did so to express their sentiment in support of a fellow worker in the judiciary. 10 Respondents begged for the indulgence of the Court and the CTA if the letter might have sounded disrespectful and promised that it will not happen in the future. Lastly, respondents denied that they had intention to interfere and/or influence in any manner the administration of justice relative to the aforecited cases. 11
In its Memorandum 12 dated February 14, 2018, the OCA found sufficient ground to hold respondents administratively liable. The OCA found that respondents "stepped over the line in bringing the concerns of the TCEA to the attention of the CTA management." The OCA opined that respondents "might have forgotten that their actuations could result in the corrosion of the respect and confidence the public has in the courts and the judicial, system." 13 Thus, the OCA recommended that respondents be held administratively liable for simple discourtesy and be reminded to be more circumspect in addressing their grievances to their respective organizations, with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar acts will be dealt with severely. 14
The Court finds well-taken the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA on the charge of discourtesy.
A perusal of the subject letter undeniably shows that respondents, along with the other officers who signed the same, went beyond what is necessary and ethical if their purpose of writing the subject letter was what they claim it to be, i.e., only to bring TCEA concerns to the attention of the CTA management. In fact, it could readily be seen that the tenor and the words used therein are not only disrespectful but also accusatory, contrary to respondents' claim that the letter was a mere innocent action from the organization that they are representing to apprise the CTA of their concerns. To be sure, there could have been a better manner, effective but proper, in bringing concerns to the courts.
This Court has always reminded those in the government service that each and everyone in the service should be circumspect of their behavior. This Court has even held that government personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times, even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. Such conduct is exacted from them to earn and maintain the public's respect for and confidence in the service. 15 Thus, it is with more reason that this standard be applied to court employees in their dealings with the court. "Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts." 16
Indeed, accusing the court of violating labor laws would definitely undermine the public's, as well as the other court employees', respect for the court.
Thus, all judicial employees must refrain from the use of abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing or otherwise improper language. They are expected to accord due respect to the public, their co-workers, the superiors, and to all others. Their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity.
In Bajar v. Baterisna, 17 this Court had the occasion to remind those in public service that:
The actions of employees must at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum. The Constitution mandates that all public officers and employees should serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Indeed, a public office is a public trust. The people — not just the judiciary — expect the best from all judicial employees, who must be paradigms in the administration of justice. 18 (Citations omitted)
Under Rule 10, Section 46, paragraph (F) (1) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service, 19 a first offense of discourtesy, which is a light offense, shall be meted the penalty of reprimand. However, We are one with the OCA in considering, not only the fact that this is respondents' first infraction, but also that are contrite and humble in asking the Court's indulgence, in resolving this disciplinary, matter. "[A]fter much consideration of the facts and circumstances, while the Court has not shied away in imposing the strictest penalty to erring employees, neither can we think and rule unreasonably in determining whether an employee deserves disciplinary sanction." 20 Thus, this Court deems it proper to admonish respondents and remind them to be more circumspect in addressing their grievances and in their dealings with the courts.
WHEREFORE, respondents Amiel C. De Vera and Michael C. Balon are hereby ADMONISHED and REMINDED to be more circumspect in addressing their grievances and in their dealings with the courts, with a STERN WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely." Leonen, J., on official business. (adv8)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 6-9.
2.Id. at 6-8.
3.Id. at 2-5.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id. at 20.
6.Id. at 24-26.
7.Id. at 21-22.
8.Id. at 27-28 and 38-41.
9.Id. at 27.
10.Id. at 39.
11.Id. at 28 and 39.
12.Id. at 55-59.
13.Id. at 58.
14.Id. at 59.
15.Bajar v. Baterisna, 531 Phil. 229, 236 (2006).
16.Id.
17. 531 Phil. 229 (2006).
18.Id. at 235-236.
19. Section 46. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
xxx xxx xxx
F. The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense:
1. Simple discourtesy in the course of official duties[.]
20.Re: Anonymous Complaint against Ms. Bayani for Dishonesty, 656 Phil. 222, 229 (2011).