G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-93-751 and A.M. No. P-93-801
Date: March 5, 1998

Case Parties:
1. NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY, complainant, vs. EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, Court Interpreter, MTC Tinambac, Camarines Sur, respondent.
2. EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, JUVY N. COSCA, RAMON C. SAMBO and APOLLO A. VILLAMORA, complainants, vs. JUDGE LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR., MTC, Tinambac Camarines Sur, respondent.
3. JUDGE LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR., complainant, vs. EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, Court Interpreter, MTC, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, respondent.
4. JUDGE LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR., complainant, vs. EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, Court Interpreter, MTC, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Four consolidated administrative complaints were filed involving personnel of the MTC, Tinambac, Camarines Sur.
1. In A.M. No. MTJ-93-751, Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy (former Clerk of Court) charged Edmundo B. Peralta (Court Interpreter) with: (a) infidelity in the custody of documents (specifically, removal and alleged loss of court exhibits in Criminal Cases Nos. 5719 and 5682); (b) falsification of daily time records (DTRs); (c) gross insubordination (refusal to act as interpreter in Criminal Case No. 5764); (d) absence without official leave (AWOL); (e) violation of court regulations by removing documents without authority; (f) dereliction of duty (e.g., misplacing processes, loitering, sleeping in session hall); and (g) incompetence. Peralta denied the charges, offering explanations for each, such as having turned over exhibits to Judge Palaypayon, and refusing to interpret due to fear for his safety from the judge’s alleged firearm.
2. In the same docket (A.M. No. MTJ-93-751), Edmundo B. Peralta and others charged Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. with harassment and grave misconduct, alleging the judge unjustly cited Peralta for direct contempt and ordered his arrest for refusing to act as interpreter during a preliminary investigation due to the same fear. Judge Palaypayon denied keeping a gun and stated Peralta was cited for refusing his official duty.
3. In A.M. No. P-93-801, Judge Palaypayon charged Peralta with infidelity in document custody, bringing out records without authority, refusal to perform duty, disobedience of office rules, and irregular attendance—allegations largely identical to those in the Baroy complaint, with additional charges like failure to wear uniforms. Peralta denied these.
4. A fourth unnumbered administrative complaint, based on a letter from Judge Palaypayon, recommended Peralta’s summary dismissal for again refusing to obey orders to act as interpreter in November 1992, which was the subject of the prior contempt citation.
During the joint investigation, complainant Baroy was dismissed from service in another case and waived her right to prosecute. Peralta sought to withdraw one complaint, while Judge Palaypayon moved to dismiss others, arguing forum-shopping and similarity to a previously resolved case (A.M. No. MTJ-95-1021). The investigating judge recommended dismissal of the Baroy complaint due to her waiver and desistance, and dismissal of the complaints against Judge Palaypayon for lack of merit, but found Peralta guilty of gross dereliction of duty for refusing to perform his function as interpreter. The Office of the Court Administrator adopted these findings but recommended Peralta’s suspension for six months.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. is guilty of grave abuse of authority for citing Edmundo B. Peralta in direct contempt.
2. Whether respondent Edmundo B. Peralta is guilty of gross dereliction of duty for refusing to perform his official function as court interpreter.

RULING

1. Regarding Judge Palaypayon: The Supreme Court found him guilty of grave abuse of authority. While judges have inherent power to punish contempt to preserve order, this must be exercised judiciously and sparingly. Peralta’s refusal to act as interpreter, based on his fear (though unsubstantiated), did not constitute direct contempt under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, as it was not committed in the presence of or so near the judge as to obstruct proceedings. The Court noted that Judge Palaypayon had been previously admonished for a similar infraction against Peralta in A.M. No. MTJ-95-1021. Accordingly, he was sentenced to pay a fine of P2,000.00 with a warning.
2. Regarding Edmundo Peralta: The Court found him guilty of gross dereliction of duty. His refusal to perform his duty as court interpreter during preliminary investigations, despite being ordered by his superior, constituted a clear neglect of duty. The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator but modified the penalty, considering it too severe. Peralta was suspended from office for fifteen (15) days, effective immediately, with a warning.
The complaints in A.M. No. MTJ-93-751 (Baroy vs. Peralta) and A.M. No. P-93-801 were resolved accordingly, with Peralta’s suspension covering the charges therein.