A.M. No. P-15-3300 - Lam vs. Garcia

Josephine E. Lam, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Siaton, Negros Oriental, filed an administrative complaint against Nila M. Garcia, a Junior Process Server of the same court.
The complaint arose from an incident that occurred on October 2, 2012, at approximately 2:20 p.m. within the court premises.

While Garcia was scanning the Office Logbook to copy the entries to her Daily Time Record (DTR), she allegedly shouted abusive words at Lam.

Garcia reportedly said, “Pin! Buang Ka! Yawa Ka! Nganong imo kong gibotangan ug absent? Gasunod sunod pa gud. Paghulat ug akoy mabotang! Disabled!”
These utterances were directed against Lam in response to a dispute regarding modifications made to Garcia’s DTR by Lam.

Lam's response to Garcia's outburst was, “Ngano mang dili tikaw botangan ug absent diha nga wala man ka nitungha?” pointing to the discrepancy in the entries of her DTR.
The verbal confrontation was loud enough for other co-employees to hear, and it resulted in Lam leaving the scene visibly upset by entering the Judge’s chambers while crying.

Attached to Lam’s initial Letter-Complaint was a Joint Affidavit executed on October 18, 2012 by Merla M. Kitane (Interpreter I) and Bernadine B. Ragay (Utility Worker I), both of whom recounted similar details of the incident.
Garcia, in her Comment and Answer, denied the accusations and claimed that the matter was nothing more than a misunderstanding arising from Lam’s modification of her DTR without prior notice.
Garcia contended that her raising of voice was merely to confront the unauthorized changes made by Lam on the DTR, which traditionally is the personal property of the employee.

On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its Report with recommendations to re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter.
The report recommended that Garcia be found guilty and recommended punishment for simple discourtesy and conduct unbecoming a court employee, along with a stern warning for any future similar offense.
Both parties later submitted their respective Manifestations conforming with the Court’s procedural instructions and resolutions.

Whether Garcia’s conduct amounted to insubordination by willfully failing to follow a lawful directive by her superior, or if it should be classified differently under administrative rules.
Whether Garcia’s actions, particularly her use of abusive and offensive language in the presence of co-employees and within the court premises, warranted administrative sanction.

Whether the charge of insubordination was appropriate in this case in light of the duties and responsibilities of a court employee.
If not insubordination, what particular offense constituted her conduct, and what corresponding disciplinary measures should be imposed in accordance with the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

The impact of Garcia’s long service record (48 years of continuous government service) and her retirement status on the imposition of a penalty.
Whether her financial reliance on retirement benefits would necessitate a less severe sanction than might otherwise be imposed on a non-retired employee.