AM P 2432; (Febuary, 1982) (Digest)

A.M. No. P-2432. February 20, 1982. REMEDIOS HERMOSO, complainant, vs. AMPARO MENDOZA, an employee of the City Court of Manila, Branch VII, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Remedios Hermoso, a conductress, went to the office of Branch VII, City Court of Manila, to inquire about the status of a physical injuries case involving her uncle. While court employee Benjamin Catindig was attending to her, respondent Amparo Mendoza, another court employee who was typing nearby, interjected with the remark, “magdedemanda demanda kayo, tapos hindi kayo pupunta” (you file cases, then you don’t attend). This unsolicited comment provoked a heated argument between Hermoso and Mendoza.
The exchange escalated. Hermoso claimed Mendoza shouted at her, while Mendoza asserted she was taken aback by Hermoso’s angry reaction. The altercation continued, with Hermoso shouting insults, including “Sobrang arrogante, ang pangit mo” (You are so arrogant, you are ugly), as she was leaving the office, while Catindig restrained Mendoza from pursuing her.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Amparo Mendoza is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a court employee.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable and is hereby admonished. The investigating judge found that while Mendoza’s initial remark was intended as a reminder of a citizen’s court duty and was made without bad intention, she nevertheless “had spoken out of turn.” She improperly interfered in a conversation where she was not a participant and was not the employee officially assisting the complainant.
The legal logic centers on the standard of conduct required of all court personnel. Courts exist to serve the public, and every officer and employee must conduct themselves in a manner that merits public respect and trust. This duty includes exhibiting civility, courtesy, and prudence in all dealings with the public. A court employee must respect and treat every citizen with dignity, especially when they have official business to transact.
Respondent’s failure to exercise tact and circumspection, by making an impertinent interjection, fell short of this standard. Her good intention does not justify the act, as the circumstances demanded restraint and a recognition that her role was to facilitate, not complicate, the public’s interaction with the court. Her subsequent reaction, though perhaps impulsive after being insulted, further demonstrated a lack of the decorum required in the public service. The admonition serves to reinforce the imperative of prudence and courtesy in her future official conduct.