G.R. No. A.M. No. P-05-2058. June 25, 2007.
GITANJALI M. BONDOC, complainant, vs. LUCIANO T. BULOSAN, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gitanjali M. Bondoc, Clerk of Court V of RTC Branch 12, Manila, charged respondent Luciano T. Bulosan, a Legal Researcher in the same branch, with Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee. She alleged that on January 18, 2005, during an argument over his Daily Time Record, respondent became enraged, stood up with clenched fists, charged towards her, and threatened her by saying, “Anong gusto mong mangyari?” Complainant, fearing for her safety as this was allegedly the second such threat, was shielded by court interpreter Ma. Teresa Mckay. Respondent also allegedly aimed a clenched fist at Mckay and challenged them to report the incident. Complainant subsequently had the incident blottered at the barangay.
In his defense, respondent claimed he merely inquired why he was being sought. He alleged that complainant publicly and maliciously accused him of anomalies regarding his time card, causing him to lose his equanimity and point a finger at her while demanding proof. He denied any physical charging or fist-clenching, asserting that Mckay misinterpreted the scene. He also stated that the parties, after an investigation by Judge Arranz, had amicably settled the misunderstanding, and complainant even executed an affidavit of desistance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Luciano T. Bulosan is administratively liable for Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee.

RULING

No, the respondent is not administratively liable. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The ruling emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and the evidence must be substantial. The Court found the complainant’s evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the respondent’s conduct. The allegations relied heavily on the sworn statements of the complainant and Mckay, which were contradicted by the joint affidavit of two other court employees who witnessed the event. These witnesses corroborated the respondent’s version that he did not charge at the complainant or make threatening gestures with clenched fists but merely pointed a finger during a heated verbal exchange.
The Court highlighted that while court personnel must always act with professionalism, the evidence did not conclusively prove that the respondent’s actions constituted the grave misconduct or unbecoming conduct alleged. The fact that the incident arose from a work-related dispute and that the parties had initially settled amicably was also noted. However, the Court admonished the complainant to be more circumspect in dealing with subordinates, warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. Furthermore, the Court directed Mckay to explain why she should not be disciplined for discrepancies in her affidavit regarding her official station.