^

Opinion

Exacting standards

A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) - Jose C. Sison -

In a previous case, simple misconduct of officials and employees involved in the administration of justice has been illustrated and defined. This case now defines “gross misconduct” and fixes its imposable penalty.

This case involved the Process Server of a Municipal Trial Court in a remote town (Jun) who also operated a boarding house for other government employees. Oftentimes Jun could be seen smoking within the court premises or would leave his post during office hours.

On November 30, 2006, at about 11:55 a.m. he left the court premises and proceeded to his house to take lunch. Before eating Jun and Jim, one of his boarders employed as agricultural officer, drank one bottle of Beer Grande. Then when Ely a subordinate of Jim in the agricultural office arrived, Jun ordered a bottle of long neck Gran Matador brandy as Ely cooked lunch for them. Later on after lunch, Jun and Jim also consumed a bottle of whiskey.

Thereafter, between four and five in the afternoon, Jun was back in the court premises along the corridor near the office of Lita the court stenographer. Then when the court employees had left except Lita and Jun, the latter, who appeared to be still drunk, kissed Lita on the lips after telling her “I love you”. According to Lita, the kiss was so hard and evidently prompted by lust that it even left a red mark on her upper lip.

Following the kissing incident, Lita filed an administrative letter-complaint for misconduct and a criminal case for acts of lasciviousness against Jun. Acting on the said complaint the Office of the Court Administrator referred the same to the Regional Trial Court Executive Judge of the Province for investigation, report and recommendation.

In the investigation, Jun flatly denied the charges against him. He submitted the same affidavit he filed in connection with the criminal complaint for acts of lasciviousness where he claimed that he and Lita were civil, if not friendly towards each other. He said that on the afternoon in question, Lita even offered him merienda and that nothing happened between them.

But after investigation the Executive Judge believed Lita’s positive testimony than Jun’s mere denial. The Judge came to the conclusion based not only on Lita’s statements but on the affidavits of other witnesses particularly the Clerk of Court who declared that while discussing with Jun his performance rating, the latter admitted that he indeed kissed Lita but only on the cheek which was just a minor thing. Then there was also the statement of Ely who confirmed that Jun and his drinking partner Jim were really drinking that afternoon. So the Judge found Jun guilty of lascivious conduct compounded by the fact that he was drunk during office hours which was apparently not the first time it happened. The judge also reported that Jun had admitted that he smoked within the court premises during office hours and left for lunch during office hours. So the Judge recommended Jun’s suspension for six months. Was the judge correct?

The finding of the investigating judge as to Jun’s lascivious conduct is well-taken. Compounding Jun’s acts of lasciviousness and drunkenness during office hours, were, by his own admission, his smoking within the court premises and leaving his post during office hours in violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 9-99.

A court employee who commits lascivious acts against a fellow employee is guilty of gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Jun’s gross misconduct and immorality not to mention his violation of the SC Circular merit his dismissal. The exacting standards of morality and decency expected of those in the service of the judiciary must be maintained, failing which the respect and confidence in the judiciary will be eroded.

So instead of mere 6 months suspension, Jun should be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of government including government owned and controlled corporation (Dontogan vs. Pagkanlungan Jr., A.M. P-06-2620. October 9, 2009. 603 SCRA, 98).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]

vuukle comment

BEER GRANDE

CLERK OF COURT

COMPOUNDING JUN

COURT

EXECUTIVE JUDGE

JUDGE

JUN

JUN AND JIM

LITA

OFFICE

SO THE JUDGE

  • Latest
  • Trending
Latest
Latest
abtest
Recommended
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

Get Updated:

Signup for the News Round now

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with