Title
Atienza vs. Perez
Case
A.M. No. P-216
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1974
A city court cash clerk and personnel officer engaged in a public altercation, violating decorum; both reprimanded for unbecoming conduct.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-216)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Complainant: Mrs. Iluminada P. Atienza, cash clerk in the city court of Manila.
    • Respondent: Mrs. Angelita L. Perez, personnel officer of the same court.
  2. Nature of the Complaint:

    • Complainant filed a verified complaint on December 10, 1973, against respondent, alleging seven counts of misconduct.
    • The Court dismissed six counts on July 9, 1974, finding respondent's explanations satisfactory.
    • The remaining charge of grave misconduct and discourtesy in the course of official duty was referred to the city court's executive judge for investigation.
  3. Incident Leading to the Complaint:

    • On October 12, 1973, an altercation occurred between complainant and respondent in respondent's office.
    • The altercation was allegedly provoked by an anonymous letter sent to respondent, which respondent suspected was written by complainant's sister.
    • Complainant confronted respondent to "disabuse" her mind of the suspicion.
  4. Witness Testimony:

    • Mr. Florencio Cabrera, a special deputy clerk of the city court, testified as a neutral witness.
    • According to Cabrera, complainant approached respondent at her desk, and after an exchange of words, complainant grabbed a folder and threw it at respondent.
    • Respondent threw a liquid (coke or coffee) at complainant, which also splattered on Cabrera.
    • Complainant attempted to reach respondent again but was restrained by Cabrera.
  5. Respondent's Account:

    • Respondent stated that complainant grabbed folders from her hands, hurled them at her, and scattered official documents on the floor.
    • Complainant also threw her high-heeled shoe at respondent, which respondent threw out of the room.
  6. Investigating Judge's Findings:

    • The investigating judge concluded that complainant provoked the incident.
    • Both parties acted in a highly indecorous and censurable manner, turning the office premises into an arena and creating a public spectacle.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent, as a personnel officer, violated the rules of proper decorum and behavior by participating in a public altercation with complainant.
  2. Whether complainant should also be held accountable for her role in provoking the incident.

Ruling:

  • The Court administered a reprimand to respondent for her indecorous and censurable behavior, with a warning against repetition of the same or similar offense.
  • Complainant was required to show cause within ten (10) days why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for her participation in the incident.

Ratio:

  1. Proper Conduct in Government Service:

    • Government personnel and employees are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times, even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.
    • As a personnel officer, respondent is expected to set an example of proper and decorous behavior for her co-employees.
  2. Provocation and Accountability:

    • While complainant provoked the incident, respondent's participation in the altercation was equally censurable.
    • Both parties acted in a manner unbecoming of government employees, violating the standards of decorum and professionalism.
  3. Disciplinary Action:

    • The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining decorum in government offices and imposed a reprimand on respondent as a disciplinary measure.
    • Complainant's role in the incident warranted further investigation, and she was required to explain her actions.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.