G.R. No. A.M. No. P-1391 July 31, 1978
MILAGROS PEÑALOSA, complainant, vs. FELIX VISCAYA, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Milagros Peñalosa filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Felix Viscaya, Jr. of the Court of First Instance of Albay for gross discourtesy. The charge stemmed from Viscaya’s failure to serve a warrant of arrest issued in Criminal Case No. 326 after the accused failed to appear for trial. Observing that the accused remained free in their town, Peñalosa sought assistance from the Philippine Constabulary and requested an explanation from Viscaya for the delay in service.
In response, Viscaya sent a letter to Peñalosa dated February 19, 1973. He justified the delay by stating the warrant was among numerous court processes requiring service across a wide geographical area. The letter contained derogatory and insulting language, comparing the complainant to an impatient child and accusing her of undue interference in his official duties. He further chastised her for lacking discretion and claimed her actions wasted his time, which could have been used to serve other processes.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Felix Viscaya, Jr. is administratively liable for gross discourtesy based on his official conduct and communication with a member of the public.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross discourtesy. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge. The legal logic centers on the fiduciary nature of public office and the standards of conduct required of court personnel. Public officers are trustees of the public and must perform their duties honestly, faithfully, and with diligence. This includes demonstrating courtesy and civility in all official interactions.
The Court emphasized that the prompt service of court orders and warrants is a fundamental duty of a sheriff. When Viscaya failed to act promptly, it was not only the right but the “business” of the concerned citizen to bring such official inaction to the attention of authorities. His response, far from being a professional explanation, was a discourteous and belligerent reprimand that exhibited a lack of self-restraint. Such behavior contravenes the injunction for government personnel to act with civility at all times. The Court reprimanded Viscaya with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely, underscoring that high-strung behavior has no place in public service, which demands prudence and careful attention to duty.