A.M. No. P-08-2569; October 30, 2009
JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, Complainant, vs. CLEMENTE U. UGALE, Interpreter II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Rene B. Baculi filed an administrative complaint against respondent Clemente U. Ugale, an Interpreter II in the same court, for Incompetence, Habitual Drunkenness, and Loafing. Prior to the complaint, Judge Baculi had issued three memoranda to Ugale concerning these charges: one on October 9, 2007, for frequent unauthorized absences; another on February 4, 2008, regarding a lawyer’s manifestation about Ugale’s incapacity to properly interpret during trials; and a third on the same date, concerning habitual drunkenness during office hours. Ugale ignored all directives to explain his actions.
In his Comment, Ugale offered explanations but did not categorically deny the accusations. He attributed his drinking to severe pain from a 2003 leg injury, claimed his medication affected his hearing and interpretation, and apologized. He also stated he had applied for early retirement due to his inability to perform his duties efficiently, admitting he failed to inform the judge personally about his retirement application.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clemente U. Ugale is administratively liable for the charges of Incompetence, Habitual Drunkenness, and Loafing.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that court personnel bear a heavy responsibility to uphold high ethical standards and public trust in the judiciary. Any conduct diminishing this faith shall not be countenanced. The Court found Ugale’s explanations unconvincing and insufficient to justify his infractions. He made no outright denial of the charges, merely sidestepping them by blaming his injury and medication. His claim that drinking eased his pain was rejected; if truly concerned, he should have sought medical consultation instead of violating rules against drinking during office hours. His failure to perform his duties, unauthorized absences, and drunkenness hampered court efficiency and were prejudicial to the public interest. No medical certificate supported his alleged health condition, and his actions showed a lack of dedication.
Applying the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, the Court considered Incompetence as the most serious charge, with the other offenses as aggravating. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended an eight-month suspension. However, as verification showed Ugale had a pending application for early retirement, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to eight months’ salary, deductible from his retirement benefits. His retirement did not moot the case, as the complaint was filed while he was still in service, preserving the Court’s disciplinary authority.