AM P 04 1925; (December, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-04-1925. December 16, 2004. COURT PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-SAN CARLOS CITY, complainants, vs. OSCAR LLAMAS, respondent.
FACTS
The complainants, employees of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the RTC of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Oscar T. Llamas, a Cash Clerk II, for discourteous, disrespectful, and unbecoming conduct. The animosity stemmed from the complainants’ testimony in an immorality case against respondent’s brother, Judge Victor T. Llamas. Witnesses testified that respondent exhibited belligerent behavior in the office, such as slamming objects and displaying hostile expressions, causing anxiety among co-employees. He was also frequently absent and tardy, often seen drinking liquor with his brother and others during office hours. Atty. Omega L. Moises, the Clerk of Court, issued several memoranda addressing his absences, tardiness, and unprofessional attitude, including one concerning his alteration of a leave form. His absences led to deductions from his salary and the withholding of allowances.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Oscar T. Llamas is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a court employee.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of Gross Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties and Frequent Unauthorized Absences or Tardiness. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, requiring employees to serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The testimonies and documentary evidence, including memoranda and payroll deductions, substantiated the charges of discourteous conduct and habitual absenteeism. Respondent’s hostile actions, disrespect towards his superior, and frequent unauthorized absences during office hours for drinking sessions constituted gross discourtesy and neglect of duty, which tarnish the integrity of the judiciary. His defense and denial were deemed unsubstantiated. Considering that respondent had already been separated from the service, the penalty of suspension was no longer viable. Applying the Omnibus Rules, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to his salary for six months, deductible from any retirement, leave, or other benefits due to him.