G.R. No. P-00-1380. June 29, 2001.
Gloria O. Dino, complainant, vs. Francisco Dumukmat, respondent.

FACTS

The administrative case originated from a sworn letter-complaint by Gloria O. Dino against Francisco G. Dumukmat, Interpreter III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Kidapawan, North Cotabato, for gross misconduct. The complaint related to Criminal Case Nos. 97-96 and 101-96 for falsification of official documents filed against Dino. Dino alleged that Dumukmat forced her brother Placido and mother Cipriana to sign the criminal complaints, sent copies to radio stations to humiliate her, influenced the court to order her arrest, and ensured she could not be represented by the Public Attorney’s Office. Dumukmat denied the allegations, stating Placido, an intelligent adult, filed the cases independently. The case was referred to Executive Judge Rogelio R. Narisma for investigation. Judge Narisma found that the controversy began when Dumukmat orchestrated the sale of Dino’s lot to the Spouses Ramos by threatening her mother and convincing her brother to sign the deed. This led Dino to file an ejectment case against the Ramoses and an estafa case against her brother, who then filed administrative and criminal cases against her in retaliation. While complainant could not prove Dumukmat assisted in filing those cases, the Investigating Judge found Dumukmat failed to assist Dino (his neighbor) when she posted bail, was discourteous by calling her an “escapee,” and committed misconduct by participating in the execution of the document conveying the lot through threats, causing a family quarrel. Judge Narisma recommended a three-month suspension without pay. The Office of the Court Administrator sustained the findings but observed Dumukmat ignited the family conflict and fomented litigation, deserving administrative sanction.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Francisco Dumukmat is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

Yes, respondent Francisco Dumukmat is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court sustained the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA but modified the penalty. Dumukmat’s actions—convincing and threatening family members to sell complainant’s lot, which triggered reciprocal lawsuits, refusing to assist complainant as a court interpreter and neighbor during her bail posting, and discourteously calling her an “escapee”—constitute conduct that tarnishes the judiciary’s integrity and diminishes public respect for those involved in justice administration. Such behavior violates the standard that court personnel must act beyond reproach. Pursuant to Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, this grave offense (first-time commission) is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year. Accordingly, Dumukmat is SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY for six months, with a stern warning against repetition.