Marbas-Vizcarra v. Soriano

A.M. No. P-01-1491 · 2003-03-28 · J. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: · Primary: Ethics; Secondary: Remedial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Complainant Judge Eleonor Teodora Marbas-Vizcarra charged respondent Princesito Soriano, a Process Server, with gross discourtesy, insubordination, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges stemmed from several incidents, including Soriano parking his jeep in the judge's reserved space, uttering threats and invectives towards the judge, shouting at the Clerk of Court when asked to serve a court process, verbally abusing postal officials, and allegedly accosting and threatening a tricycle driver while identifying himself as a policeman and pointing a gun at him. There were also other pending complaints regarding his rude behavior, smoking in court, and arrogance. Procedural History: The complaint was docketed as a regular administrative proceeding and referred to an Executive Judge for investigation. The respondent was suspended pending the outcome. The Executive Judge found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct, insubordination, and gross discourtesy, recommending a one-year suspension. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution based on the investigation report and recommendation.

Issue(s)

Whether respondent Princesito Soriano is guilty of gross discourtesy, insubordination, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Whether the recommended penalty is appropriate.

Ruling

The Supreme Court found respondent Princesito Soriano GUILTY of GROSS DISCOURTESY and SUSPENDED him for Six (6) Months without pay. He was further ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his judicial functions and STERNLY WARNED that the commission of similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Ratio Decidendi

On whether respondent Princesito Soriano is guilty of gross discourtesy, insubordination, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court held that the conduct and behavior of every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice are circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. Agents of the law must refrain from the use of language that is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. Judicial employees are expected to accord due respect to their superiors and others, with every act and word characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity. The Court found overwhelming evidence that the respondent was guilty of gross discourtesy in the conduct of his duties, citing his shouting and use of invectives towards the judge and other court personnel, as well as his abusive behavior towards postal officials and a civilian. Such improper behavior, particularly during office hours, exhibits a paucity of professionalism and disrespect to the court itself, constituting a failure of circumspection demanded of public officials. On whether the recommended penalty is appropriate: The Court found the recommendation of the Executive Judge well taken. It reiterated that there is no room for gross discourtesy in the ranks of court employees. In Baniqued v. Rojas, it was held that shouting in the workplace during office hours constitutes discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers but to the court as well. Considering the attendant circumstances and the gravity of the offense, the Court deemed it proper to suspend the respondent for six (6) months without pay, which is within the range prescribed by Rule XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Rules on Civil Service for gross discourtesy (suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months). The respondent was also admonished and sternly warned against future similar acts.

Main Doctrine

Judicial employees are expected to refrain from the use of language that is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper. Their conduct and behavior must be circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility, characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, and dignity, especially towards their superiors.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →