G.R. No. P-04-1927. April 15, 2005
Alicia Aradanas, Complainant, vs. Catherine V. Dimaclid, Reggie O. Brigido, Riza L. Pelegrino, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Alicia Aradanas, a witness in a criminal case, went to the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Culasi, Antique, to inquire about the case status. She observed respondents, who were stenographic reporters, picking up scattered Scrabble tiles. Aradanas asked respondent Catherine Dimaclid about the hearing schedule. Dimaclid, addressing her as “Ma’am,” informed her of the set date and that notices had been mailed. Aradanas requested a rescheduling as the prosecutor was unavailable, but Dimaclid explained that only the court could schedule hearings.
Aradanas then lost her temper, pointed her finger at Dimaclid, and shouted in the local dialect, “Sin-o gid kamo dya haw?” (Who are you in this court?). Dimaclid cautioned her not to shout and stated she would inform the judge. Aradanas retorted, “Sugid to kay Judge hay!” (You tell that to the judge!) and shouted “Gaga!” (You fool!). During this exchange, Dimaclid loudly told Aradanas, “Aram gid ti mo” (You know what to do). The judge later required Aradanas to show cause for possible indirect contempt, but she was exonerated. Aradanas subsequently filed this administrative complaint, alleging misconduct and discourtesy against Dimaclid and accusing all three respondents of playing Scrabble during office hours.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for misconduct, discourtesy in the course of official duties, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

The Court found respondent Catherine V. Dimaclid liable for discourtesy in the course of official duties but exonerated respondents Reggie O. Brigido and Riza L. Pelegrino. The legal logic centers on the standard of conduct required of court personnel, who serve as sentinels of justice. Their behavior must uphold the judiciary’s dignity and public confidence. Even when provoked by rudeness, court personnel are enjoined to act with restraint and civility. Dimaclid’s remark, “Aram gid ti mo,” uttered loudly during a heated exchange, constituted disrespect and discourtesy toward a member of the public. This is a light offense under Section 52(C)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by reprimand for a first offense.
Regarding Brigido and Pelegrino, the evidence did not substantiate the claim that they were playing Scrabble during office hours. The investigation revealed they were merely assisting Dimaclid in picking up tiles accidentally strewn by a visitor. Absent proof of misconduct, their exoneration is warranted. Accordingly, Dimaclid is reprimanded and sternly warned that a repetition will be met with a more severe penalty.