AM P 02 1615; (April, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-02-1615. April 29, 2003.
Pedro Magnaye, complainant, vs. Eriberto R. Sabas, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Puerto Princesa City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Pedro Magnaye was a party in Civil Case No. 1353 for damages and easement of right of way. A decision was rendered in his favor in 1997, but it remained unexecuted. The case was later dismissed by the Municipal Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction, declaring the judgment void. Seeking enforcement of the earlier decision, Magnaye approached respondent Eriberto R. Sabas, the Clerk of Court. Respondent agreed to conduct an ocular inspection.
On October 10, 1999, during a visit to complainant’s residence to discuss the matter, respondent, in a state of exasperation over complainant’s persistent demands regarding the width of the right of way, uttered the words, “Putang ina mo, napakatigas ng ulo mo!” in the presence of Magnaye’s wife. This prompted Magnaye to file an administrative complaint for Conduct Unbecoming a Public Official and Discourtesy.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Eriberto R. Sabas is administratively liable for his discourteous and improper conduct towards a member of the public.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding that respondent failed to act with the requisite self-restraint, civility, and prudence demanded of a judiciary employee. Every officer of the court must accord respect to the rights and person of others, and their conduct must be characterized by courtesy and dignity at all times. Government service is people-oriented and does not tolerate belligerent or high-strung behavior. Regardless of the provocation or the merit of one’s motives, courtesy must remain a constant policy for public officers.
The Court classified the act as Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, a light offense under the rules implementing the Administrative Code. For a first-time offender, the prescribed penalty is a reprimand. Consistent with precedent, the Court imposed this penalty. Respondent, having retired in 2001 but with benefits withheld pending administrative cases, was found GUILTY. He was REPRIMANDED and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be met with a more severe sanction.