G.R. No. A.M. No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997
CLERK II MADONNA MACALUA, complainant, vs. COURT AIDE DOMINGO TIU, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Madonna Macalua, a Clerk II of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44 in Dumaguete City, filed an administrative complaint for “grave misconduct in office” against respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr., a Court Aide in the same branch. The complaint stemmed from an incident on February 23, 1994. Mrs. Adela dela Peña went to the office to follow up on the withdrawal of a bail bond for her son. Complainant Macalua, in charge of criminal records, informed her she could not release the bond without a signed court order, as the existing motion was directed to a different branch and filed before the current judge assumed office. She advised Mrs. dela Peña to return the next day to speak with Attorney Ricafort. Respondent Tiu, Jr., a court aide, intervened, insisting that Macalua release the bond because Mrs. dela Peña came from a far place. When Macalua refused, respondent took the case record from her table, searched for the bond while muttering criticisms about Attorney Ricafort’s absence, and promised to personally deliver the papers. A quarrel ensued between complainant and respondent. After a series of judicial inhibitions, the case was investigated by Judge Temistocles Diez, who recommended a finding of “simple misconduct and gross discourtesy.”

ISSUE

Whether respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in intervening and insisting on the release of a court document without authority, and for his conduct towards a co-employee.

RULING

Yes. The Court found respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr. guilty of simple misconduct. As a court aide, he had no authority to release court records or compel the clerk to do so. While his motive to help a townmate may have been commendable, his manner of carrying it out was reprehensible and showed a lack of courtesy, violating the standard of conduct required of judiciary personnel. The Court emphasized that the conduct of all court officials and employees must be characterized by strict propriety and decorum. Quarreling with a co-employee within court premises during office hours is prejudicial to public service. Pity for a member of the public does not excuse discourtesy or justify misconduct. Applying CSC Memorandum Circular No. 30, s. 1989, simple misconduct is a less grave offense. The Court AFFIRMED the recommendation to suspend respondent from office for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay and WARNED him that a repetition would be dealt with severely.