A.M. No. P-2221 - Abenojar vs. Lopez

On June 29, 1979, Atty. Cipriano Abenojar filed a sworn letter-complaint against Domingo Lopez, a clerk at the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch IX.

The complaint charged respondent with arrogance, discourtesy, incompetence, and abuse of authority—behaviors unbecoming of a court employee.

On June 28, 1979, while inquiring about the processing venue of the petition for "Rodrigo Sapigao" in Land Case No. 29 (G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 9961), complainant sought clarity on whether the case was being handled in Branch IX or Branch V.

Respondent initially replied, after checking his records, that "the file is not here, may be in the other branch."

When complainant questioned the certainty of his answer, respondent, with an elevated tone, curtly stated, "I said it is not here ---- Period."

Upon further clarification sought by complainant regarding the specific sala assignment, respondent again responded dismissively with, "May be in the other sala, it is not here ---- Period."

The interaction escalated when complainant asked for the respondent’s name from a Deputy Sheriff, leading respondent to retort in a loud and challenging voice, "Meet me anywhere. I am not afraid," in the presence of other employees.

As complainant proceeded toward the court’s sala, respondent, still in the presence of others, made a provocative remark in a loud tone—translating to "I might strike you."

Later, during the court proceedings, complainant noticed respondent standing by the Clerk of Court’s door, glaring in a manner suggestive of potential threat; however, complainant maintained composure to avoid disruption.

On July 7, 1980, respondent admitted in his comment-explanation that he had indeed answered back to complainant during the incident.

Acknowledging his error—especially considering complainant’s status as an elderly lawyer and officer of the court—respondent sought forgiveness, which was subsequently granted.

In a letter dated July 3, 1980, complainant formally requested that his complaint against respondent be withdrawn or deemed closed, following an amicable resolution during a visit to his office.

Despite this reconciliation, Deputy Court Administrators Romeo D. Mendoza and Arturo B. Buena recommended that disciplinary action be pursued, emphasizing that similar behavior must be met with stricter sanctions if repeated.

The incident raised concerns regarding respondent’s lack of courtesy and professionalism, which is a violation of the standards expected from public officers.

The applicable civil service law (Section 36, par. (b) (7) of P.D. 807) and the constitutional mandate (Section 1, Article XIII, 1973 Constitution) underscore that public office is a public trust requiring the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

Precedents such as Antonio vs. Diaz, Espayos vs. Lee, Advincula vs. Malicudio, De la Cruz vs. Mudlong, and Vasquez vs. Malvar support the principle that personal reconciliation or withdrawal of complaints does not negate the imposition of disciplinary actions when misconduct is established.

Whether respondent’s discourteous and disrespectful conduct in discharging his official duties constitutes a valid ground for disciplinary action.
Whether the complainant’s subsequent request to withdraw or close the complaint precludes the initiation of administrative proceedings against respondent.
Whether the admission of having answered back, alongside the observed aggressive behavior, sufficiently demonstrates incompetence and abuse of authority expected from a public officer.