A.M. No. P-12-3035 - Jaravata vs. Orencia

On 7 April 2011, Judge Ethelwolda A. Jaravata, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), First Judicial Region in Aringay, La Union, filed a complaint letter with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The complaint alleged that on 18 February 2011, respondent Precioso T. Orencia, the Clerk of Court II of MTC Agoo, entered her chambers while intoxicated and made disrespectful and discourteous statements.

On 19 June 2003, and on two subsequent occasions, Judge Jaravata was designated to hear cases originally assigned to the presiding judge of Agoo through orders issued by Executive Judge Clifton U. Ganay.
In one instance, respondent Orencia delayed forwarding pending case records for two days after receiving a Motion.
During the court session on 10 December 2010, respondents (the clerk, the stenographer, and the process server) were absent, and a subpoena was not properly served; these lapses prompted earlier expressions of concern by Judge Jaravata regarding Orencia’s conduct.

At approximately 3:00 p.m., after the court session had ended, Judge Jaravata was preparing to leave the court building when respondent Orencia entered the corridor.
Orencia presented a diary as a gift and explained he had just come from a social affair, an explanation that preceded a heated verbal exchange.
Judge Jaravata remarked, “I thought you went to GSIS. You are heavily drunk, Mang Che. Be careful, you might not retire if somebody will file a case against you. You are drunk and you are here.”
In response, Orencia launched into a tirade, stating: “You are the one interested in removing me. I am not afraid to be removed, if I all be removed, I have means to live, all my children are finished (with their schooling)... If I will be removed, I assure you that all of us will be removed.”
The exchange continued with Orencia calling the judge by her first name and further berating her, even as other court personnel and litigants were present.
Amid the altercation, when Judge Jaravata attempted to smoke to calm herself, Orencia interjected, “Even you, you are smoking.”
Judge Jaravata summoned Executive Judge Clifton Ganay, yet Orencia persisted with his verbal invectives.

As a result of the incident, Judge Jaravata formally charged Orencia with disrespect and discourtesy tantamount to grave misconduct, also decrying the failure of in-house security to ensure proper conduct within the Hall of Justice.
An incident report prepared by Security Guard Roberto Lacsamana controversially attributed the disturbances to the judge’s smoking, a point which the judge contested.
On 13 April 2011, respondent Orencia submitted his Comment with Counter-Complaint, admitting to attending a social affair and consuming two bottles of beer but denying being “heavily drunk.”
Orencia contended that his actions were in response to the judge’s smoking inside the chamber and maintained that he greeted her politely by handing over a diary before the exchange devolved into insults.

On 12 December 2011, the OCA issued a report recommending that respondent Orencia be reprimanded for his discourteous behavior and fined ₱3,000.
The report further highlighted that his conduct—specifically leaving his post during working hours and entering the judge’s chambers while under the influence of alcohol—constituted a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
The report was grounded on Section 2, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct, emphasizing that court personnel must exhibit courtesy and proper decorum to uphold the image and integrity of the judiciary.

Whether the respondent’s conduct in entering the judge's chambers while intoxicated and subsequently issuing disrespectful remarks constitutes discourtesy in the course of official duties.

The issue centers on the application of Section 2, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
Determination of whether such conduct, witnessed by court personnel and litigants, violates established norms of behavior and propriety within the judicial environment.

Whether the disciplinary measures recommended by the OCA, specifically reprimand and a ₱3,000 fine, are appropriate given the circumstances of the incident and the respondent’s conduct.

Consideration of the respondent’s counter-complaint alleging mitigating circumstances (e.g., consumption of only two bottles of beer, protocol in gift-giving).
Assessment of the proportionality of the penalty in light of the respondent’s long years of service and subsequent retirement.

Whether the additional lapses by the respondent (such as failing to strictly observe required working hours and delaying the processing of cases) should be treated independently from the incident involving the judge.

The issue entails whether multiple administrative failures warrant separate disciplinary actions.
Analysis on the need for separate adjudication of countercharges asserted by the respondent regarding the judge and other court personnel.