A.M. No. P-03-1672. June 8, 2007.
Peter A. de Vera, Jr., complainant, vs. Alexander C. Rimando, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Olongapo City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Peter A. de Vera, Jr., Clerk of Court III and Assistant Clerk of Court, filed an administrative complaint against his immediate supervisor, respondent Alexander C. Rimando, Clerk of Court IV, for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service. De Vera alleged that after Rimando returned from a six-month suspension in a prior administrative case, Rimando exhibited a belligerent and vindictive attitude. Specific incidents included Rimando allegedly shouting vulgar remarks like “Putang ina mo” at De Vera during office hours and, more critically, intentionally refusing to give De Vera any work assignment, effectively leaving him without official duties while still receiving his salary. De Vera also claimed Rimando bypassed him in the hierarchy by authorizing other subordinates to act during his absences.
In his defense, Rimando denied the allegations, claiming it was De Vera who instigated the verbal altercation. He presented De Vera’s “highly satisfactory” performance ratings as proof he did not strip him of duties. The investigating judge initially recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding the vulgar phrases to be common expressions of reprimand and the threat of assault unbelievable given their physical disparity. He also noted no litigant complaints about delayed court transactions.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Rimando and complainant De Vera are administratively liable for their conduct.

RULING

Yes, both are administratively liable. The Supreme Court reversed the investigating judge’s recommendation. The Court held that the conduct of both parties, particularly their shouting match involving vulgar language within court premises during office hours, constituted arrant discourtesy and disrespect unbecoming of judicial employees. Such behavior tarnishes the dignity of court proceedings and cannot be countenanced.
Regarding Rimando’s specific act of refusing to assign work to De Vera, the Court found this constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It created a situation where a public officer received salary for doing nothing, which is a violation of the principle that a public office is a public trust. The absence of litigant complaints is immaterial; the act itself is deplorable. Consequently, both De Vera and Rimando were found guilty of Simple Misconduct for their mutual discourteous conduct, fined P1,000 each, and warned. Rimando was additionally fined P1,000 for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.