Facts:

The case involves Gitanjali M. Bondoc, the complainant, who is a Clerk of Court V at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 in Manila, and Luciano T. Bulosan, the respondent, who serves as a Legal Researcher in the same court. The events leading to the complaint occurred on January 18, 2005, around 9:00 a.m., when a heated argument erupted between Bondoc and Bulosan regarding Bulosan's Daily Time Record (DTR). During the confrontation, Bulosan allegedly became enraged, stood up with clenched fists, and threatened Bondoc with the words, "Anong gusto mong mangyari?" This incident caused Bondoc to tremble in fear, as she had previously been threatened by Bulosan. Ma. Teresa Mckay, a court interpreter, intervened to protect Bondoc, but Bulosan responded aggressively, challenging Mckay as well. Following the altercation, Bondoc sought assistance from security guards and reported the incident to the barangay, while Bulosan approached Judge Arranz to discuss the matter.

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Complainant: Gitanjali M. Bondoc, Clerk of Court, Branch 12, Manila.
• Respondent: Luciano T. Bulosan, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Manila.
• Secondary Involvement: Ma. Teresa Mckay, a court interpreter, who intervened during the incident.
• The dispute involves personnel within the judicial branch showing behavior not in keeping with the standards expected of court employees.

Chronology of the Incident and Prior Interactions

• Date and Time of Incident: On January 18, 2005, at about 9:00 a.m.
• Trigger Event: A dispute over the complainant’s Daily Time Record (DTR) initiated a confrontation.
• Verbal Confrontation:
• According to the complaint-affidavit, the respondent charged at the complainant, threatening her with the words “Anong gusto mong mangyari?”
• History of previous threats contributed to the complainant’s fear.
• Intervention:
• Ma. Teresa Mckay intervened by rushing in to protect the complainant.
• Mckay’s actions further escalated the tension by shouting at the respondent, who then retorted with “isa ka pa.”

Divergent Accounts and Evidentiary Discrepancies

• Complainant’s Version:
• Portrays the respondent as having lost his temper and physically advancing towards her with clenched fists.
• Indicates that prohibitive verbal threats were repeated during the incident.
• Respondent’s Counter Statement:
• Asserts that he merely inquired about the reason for being sought and did not act with anger initially.
• Describes the situation evolving after the complainant’s provocative remarks, including an exchange over the punching of a time card.
• Mentions that his physical gesture and subsequent verbal retort (“Isa ka pa!”) were in response to the complainant’s malicious imputations and challenges.
• Witness Testimony and Affidavits:
• The testimony of the security guard and affidavits of other employees (including Emmanuel Pena and Allen Alfonso) were expected but not fully presented by the complainant.
• Verification by Judge Arranz and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted discrepancies in allegations, such as Mckay’s statement about the respondent’s voice being “malumanay.”

Subsequent Proceedings and Settlement Efforts

• Administrative Investigation:
• Initiated by Judge Arranz following the incident.
• An evaluation by the OCA detailed the standards expected of court employees regarding civility and decorum.
• Attempted Settlement:
• The parties met and seemingly resolved their personal differences in the presence of the judge.
• The complainant subsequently withdrew her complaint on February 2, 2005, citing the need to focus on their respective duties.
• Ongoing Procedural Matters:
• Despite the withdrawal, the matter continued as an administrative proceeding since the interest of the judiciary in maintaining public trust remains paramount.
• Further correspondences included requests for filing a substantive answer and the eventual dismissal of procedural submissions due to non-compliance with earlier deadlines.
• Ancillary Issue – Mckay’s Assignment:
• Mckay performed her duties at Branch 12 although her official station was at Branch 173.
• This fact raised concerns over her adherence to internal rules, particularly in relation to reassignments per Circular No. 18-97.

Issue:

Whether the respondent’s conduct during the altercation – including verbal threats and physical gestures – constitutes misconduct as defined by established norms for court personnel.

• Assessment of whether his behavior deviated from the required standard of civility and self-restraint.
• The impact of such behavior on the public trust bestowed upon government employees.

Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant negates the authority of the court to continue the administrative proceedings.

• Consideration of the principle that public office is a public trust.
• The court’s duty to impose sanctions irrespective of a complainant’s desistance if evidence of misconduct exists.

Whether both parties’ conduct – including the alleged confrontations, verbal exchanges, and failure to follow proper procedure – breaches the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

• Evaluation of the extent to which personal conflict and belligerent behavior have disrupted the workplace’s decorum.
• The necessity of upholding public confidence in the judiciary despite personal grievances.

Whether the irregularities in Mckay’s reassignments and her affidavit (containing assertions later verified as inaccurate) warrant disciplinary action.

• Determination of her compliance with the guidelines on the detail and reassignment of court personnel.
• The responsibility to maintain truthfulness and accuracy in official affidavits.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)