A.M. No. 1062-CCC. March 20, 1979.
RE: RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF MRS. CECILIA MENDIETTA, Interpreter, Circuit Criminal Court, Pasig, Metro Manila.

FACTS

Judge Onofre A. Villaluz of the Circuit Criminal Court in Pasig recommended the dismissal of his court interpreter, Mrs. Cecilia Mendietta, for being “notoriously undesirable.” The specific incident cited occurred on January 24, 1977. Mrs. Mendietta answered a telephone call and, upon the caller identifying himself as “Atty. Buena,” she replied that she was “Senorita Malas.”
During an investigation the following day, Mrs. Mendietta explained her conduct. She stated that she had previously received a call from a person who identified himself as “Atty. Tsong Tsay Tong,” which she believed to be a prankster. When the subsequent caller said he was “Atty. Buena,” she assumed it was the same prankster and responded jokingly with “Senorita Malas.” Upon being informed by her officemates that the caller was indeed Atty. Arturo Buena, the Executive Officer of the Supreme Court, she immediately apologized to him.

ISSUE

Whether the act of Mrs. Cecilia Mendietta in answering a telephone call from a superior court officer by identifying herself as “Senorita Malas” constitutes sufficient ground for her dismissal from the service for being notoriously undesirable.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the recommendation for dismissal but reprimanded Mrs. Mendietta with a warning. The Court’s legal logic balanced the requirement of courtesy for court personnel against the principles of proportionality and fairness in administrative penalties. The Court found no “clear and definite showing” that Mrs. Mendietta was critically lacking in courtesy towards superior officers. It considered her explanation that she mistakenly believed the call was from a prankster, given a prior suspicious call, and, most importantly, her immediate apology upon learning the caller’s true identity. The Court held that dismissal would be a “too drastic a punishment” for the single incident, which was mitigated by her subsequent apology.
However, the ruling emphasized that as an employee of a court of justice, she must always practice courtesy and that there are proper ways to handle molesting calls without creating an incident. The reprimand and the entry of the resolution in her personal record serve as a corrective measure and a stern warning that any future similar act of discourtesy would be met with a more severe sanction. This balanced approach upholds the dignity of the judiciary while adhering to equitable discipline.