A.M. No. P-14-3259 - IN RE: Lumilang

On October 7, 2008, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an anonymous complaint against Emiliana A. Lumilang, Court Interpreter III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon.
The complaint charged respondent with incompetence and misconduct in the performance of her duties, specifically alleging poor command of the English language which resulted in erroneous translations of testimonies from Visayan dialect.

It was alleged that respondent’s translations were so erroneous that they required correction by the lawyers themselves, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or acquittals.
The complaint also included allegations of an arrogant demeanor; for instance, respondent reportedly answered a lawyer’s request for a copy of the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) with the statement, "I have a lot of work to do, I am fed up, I cannot do it anymore."

The initial investigation was conducted by Executive Judge Josefina G. Bacal, who after a two-year investigation, submitted a report on June 24, 2011 recommending dismissal of the complaint, giving credence to respondent’s claim that her job did not include transcribing stenographic notes.
The OCA, finding the initial report insufficient, referred the case to Acting Executive Judge Dennis Z. Alcantar for a more thorough investigation.
Acting Executive Judge Alcantar, in his report dated September 25, 2012, found respondent to be incompetent in her duties as court interpreter based on numerous interviews and evidence of her repeated errors.

Testimonies from court personnel and lawyers corroborated the allegations of incompetence, noting that respondent consistently erred in translating testimonies and demonstrated a lack of improvement despite prior warnings.
Evidence showed that respondent was given an "Unsatisfactory" performance rating for the semester January to June 2009, and multiple complaints were documented regarding her errors in translation.
Although the complaint included an incident of alleged arrogance, the investigation acknowledged that sufficient evidence to conclusively determine the incident could not be ascertained due to the long lapse of time since it occurred.

Whether respondent’s consistent inability to accurately translate testimonies from Visayan to English constitutes incompetence in the performance of her duties as court interpreter.
Whether the evidence presented justifies a finding of inefficiency in performing official duties, thereby undermining the integrity of courtroom proceedings.

What is the proper disciplinary sanction to be imposed under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) for an offense classified as inefficiency and incompetence.
Whether mitigating circumstances should be considered given that this is respondent’s first infraction, and to what extent a penalty might be tempered by discretion.

Whether respondent’s allegedly arrogant reply to a lawyer’s request for TSN, though noted, can be sufficiently proven or considered in the context of the overall misconduct.