A.M. No. P-04-1817. December 19, 2007.
ZENAIDA D. JUNTO, complainant, vs. ALICIA BRAVO-FABIA, former Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Dagupan City, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Zenaida Junto charged respondent Atty. Alicia Bravo-Fabia, a Clerk of Court, with discourtesy and conduct unbecoming of a public official. The dispute arose from adjacent properties separated by a feeder road. Complainant, alleging that respondent’s bamboo groves were encroaching on the road and touching her house, directed her laborers to cut and burn the protruding bamboos on November 5, 2001. Complainant alleged that respondent, upon learning of this, angrily entered her property, shouted curses and threats, including a threat to have complainant “liquidated” by the New People’s Army, and demanded P1.5 million in damages. Complainant further claimed that respondent continued to hurl insults on subsequent occasions.
Respondent denied the accusations, claiming she was elsewhere during the incident and only learned of it days later. She asserted the complaint was filed to harass her near her retirement. An investigation by Executive Judge Silverio Q. Castillo found that respondent likely did utter the offensive remarks in a fit of anger upon discovering the cut bamboos, but recommended dismissal, reasoning her actions were those of a private property owner, not connected to her official duties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for her conduct towards complainant.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming a public official. The Supreme Court rejected the investigating judge’s recommendation for dismissal. The Court emphasized that a public official’s duty to uphold the law and exhibit propriety extends beyond office hours and is not confined to the workplace. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials requires them to act with justness, sincerity, and respect at all times. Respondent’s use of profane language, threats of violence, and demeaning insults, regardless of the provocation, fell far short of this standard. Such behavior tarnishes the integrity of the judiciary and erodes public respect for the court she served.
The Court held that the act need not be connected to official functions to warrant administrative sanction; any conduct that diminishes the people’s faith in the judiciary is subject to discipline. Respondent’s retirement did not divest the Court of jurisdiction, as the infraction occurred while she was in service. Considering it was her first offense, the Court imposed a fine of P1,000.00, to be deducted from her retirement benefits, as a moderate penalty for her unbecoming conduct.