G.R. No. A.M. No. 2195 (3167-V) / A.M. No. 2087-CTJ May 29, 1981
JUDGE PERFECTO A. S. LAGUIO, complainant, vs. HERMINIA C. DIAZ, respondent. / HERMINIA CABRERA DIAZ, complainant, vs. PERFECTO A. S. LAGUIO, respondent.

FACTS

These consolidated administrative cases stem from a conflict between Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. of the Quezon City Court, and his deputy clerk of court, Herminia C. Diaz. Judge Laguio filed a complaint against Diaz for inefficiency, discourtesy, and failure to report for duty. The discord intensified when the judge divided the sala’s workload, assigning Diaz to civil cases and another deputy clerk to criminal cases, citing her inefficiency. Subsequently, upon Judge Laguio’s recommendation, Executive Judge Genovea issued a memorandum permanently assigning Diaz to the Office of the Clerk of Court, which Diaz viewed as oppressive.
Diaz went on leave and, upon its expiration, applied for further vacation leave, which was denied by both Judge Laguio and Executive Judge Genovea. Instead of reporting, she applied for sick leave. Judge Laguio then ordered her to explain her absences, imposed a five-day suspension, and later a one-month salary fine for continued absence. Diaz challenged these orders. Ultimately, Judge Laguio issued a dismissal order against Diaz. In a separate complaint, Diaz charged Judge Laguio with oppression, ignorance of the law, and misconduct.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether respondent Diaz is administratively liable for her actions and absences; and (2) Whether respondent Judge Laguio is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court approved the recommendations of the Court Administrator. In the case against Diaz (A.M. No. 3167-V), the charge of inefficiency and discourtesy was dismissed, as her detail to the clerk of court’s office was deemed a sufficient remedy for the office discord. However, she was found guilty of misconduct for failing to report for work despite the denial of her leave applications. The Court held she was not entitled to pay from October 4 to December 31, 1978, deeming her under suspension for that period, and ordered her permanent transfer to the office of the clerk of court.
In the case against Judge Laguio (A.M. No. 2087-CTJ), the charges were dismissed for being unfounded, as they appeared to be a retaliatory offshoot of Diaz’s dismissal. Nevertheless, based on testimonies from lawyers regarding his tardiness and intemperate language in court, the Court admonished Judge Laguio to act with decorum, patience, and courtesy towards counsel and litigants, reminding him that his conduct must be free from impropriety.