FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. 2022-05-SC. July 6, 2022.]
RE: VERBAL ALTERCATION AT PROPERTY DIVISION, OAS-OCA
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2022which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 2022-05-SC (Re: Verbal Altercation at Property Division, OAS-OCA). — The Court NOTES the Memorandum 1 dated 21 March 2022 of the Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court (SC-OAS), involving the verbal altercation between Ms. Maria Dorothy A. Agonos (complainant), Supply Officer II, Procurement Section, Property Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, and Mr. Gil Joseph B. Cabanting (respondent), Supply Officer III, same office.
In her letter 2 dated 15 March 2022, complainant alleged that respondent cursed her while pointing at her in a threatening and condescending manner at around 2:00 p.m. in their office right after the online meeting of the Bids and Awards Committee for General Services (BAC-GS). Allegedly, respondent insinuated that complainant made it appear that he was at fault over a problem in the procurement of bond paper for the lower courts. As their confrontation progressed, complainant recounted, "ang sabi ko po sa kanya wag nya ako murahin at duruin, sumagot lang ako sa query ng Committee." 3
In his letter-explanation 4 dated 16 March 2022, respondent apologized and explained that the altercation was caused by his frustration and disgust over complainant's misleading and flip-flopping statements during the BAC-GS meeting over the procurement of bond paper. Particularly, when asked if the distribution list submitted was based on the 2021 Annual Procurement Plan and if it could be consolidated, complainant answered "Pwede naman siguro kaya lang, wala pang ginagawa for 2022." Respondent, however, refuted complainant's statement that there was no distribution list of bond paper for 2022. He further claimed that he cursed as an expression of his anger and frustration at what transpired, as part of common speech, and not necessarily directed at complainant. 5
The SC-OAS recommended that respondent be held administratively liable for violation of Section 2, Canon IV, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, tantamount to simple discourtesy in the course of official duty and be reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. 6 It reasoned:
The cursing of the complainant by the respondent x x x which the latter admits and apologizes for x x x, can never find justification as far as responsibilities and duties rendered while in the service of the Judiciary are concerned. The same holds true regardless if the curse words were uttered out of frustration or indignation borne out of (reputedly) erroneous facts reported by a participant in a meeting, which caused embarrassment to the respondent, or whether they were not meant to be taken personally by the complainant. 7
The Court has consistently reminded and admonished that "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." 8
Engaging in a verbal altercation and swearing or cursing at a co-employee in the workplace falls short of the professionalism expected from respondent as an officer of the Court. Though the same must have been caused by his frustration and disappointment over complainant's erroneous report and her alleged unprofessionalism, respondent is still required "to act with self-restraint and civility at all times, even when confronted with rudeness and insolence." 9 Such high-strung demeanor characterizes discourtesy and disrespect not just towards his co-worker, but also with the court. 10 CAIHTE
Simple discourtesy in the course of official duties is punishable by reprimand on the first offense. 11 However, "while the Court has not shied away in imposing the strictest penalty to erring employees, neither can [W]e think and rule unreasonably in determining whether an employee deserves disciplinary sanction." 12 Exercising its discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment, and given respondent's apology and length of service in the Judiciary, the Court deems it sufficient to admonish respondent to observe courtesy in the performance of official duties with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. 13
Finally, this administrative matter could have been avoided had respondent and complainant exercised proper coordination in the performance of their duties especially since they are working within the same section and office. For this reason, both of them are reminded to cooperate and coordinate with each other and their co-workers to ensure that official transactions are conducted effectively and efficiently.
WHEREFORE, respondent Gil Joseph B. Cabanting is ADMONISHED to observe courtesy in dealing with his co-workers in the performance of official duties and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Moreover, both respondent and complainant Maria Dorothy A. Agonos are REMINDED to cooperate and coordinate with each other and their co-workers to ensure that official transactions are conducted effectively and efficiently.
SO ORDERED."
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. 1-5; signed by Atty. Maria Carina M. Cunanan, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court.
2.Id. at 9.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 4.
7.Id.
8.Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, Court of Tax Appeals, Concerning the Letter Dated 1 June 2016 from the Judiciary Employees Association of the Philippines, A.M. No. 16-07-03-CTA, 10 July 2018 (Unsigned Resolution).
9.In Re: Incident Report of the Security Division, Supreme Court, on the Alleged Unlady-LikeManner of Ms. Edna S. Cesar, RTC, Branch 171, Valenzuela City, 437 Phil. 539, 545 (2002).
10.Canonigo v. Canoy, A.M. No. P-21-011, 18 March 2021.
11. Section 50 (F) (1), Rule 10, 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, CSC Resolution No. 1701077 (2017).
12.Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, Court of Tax Appeals, Concerning the Letter Dated 1 June 2016 from the Judiciary Employees Association of the Philippines, supra note 8, citing Re: Anonymous Complaint against Ms. Bayani for Dishonesty, 656 Phil. 222 (2011).
13.See Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario, Court of Tax Appeals, Concerning the Letter Dated 1 June 2016 from the Judiciary Employees Association of the Philippines, supra note 8; Alconera v. Pallanan, 725 Phil. 1 (2014); and Sasing v. Gelbolingo, 704 Phil. 251 (2013).