A.M. No. 2004-09-SC - Narvasa-Kampana vs. Josue

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2004-09-SC)

Factual Background

The complainant went to the Court premises at around 3:00 p.m. on March 11, 2004. She asked the guard stationed at the entrance of the Centennial Building where she could obtain a certification for the accreditation of a bonding company. The guard directed her to the Property Division and told her to look for a certain Norma. Upon entering the Property Division, she approached a table of a male staff member, asked where she could secure a certification for the accreditation of an insurance or bonding company, and was similarly directed to go to Norma.

According to the complainant, she approached the respondent and greeted her “Good Afternoon.” The respondent allegedly answered “Ano yon?” The complainant then inquired in Filipino: “Dito ba kinukuha ang certification ng accreditation ng isang insurance or bonding company?” The respondent seemed unable to understand the request. The respondent asked “Kaso ba yan?” The complainant replied “Yes, Probate ng last will.” The complainant asserted that her response further confused the respondent and made her hesitant to continue.

The complainant claimed that throughout the exchange, the respondent was sarcastic and that the respondent asked, in a manner the complainant experienced as insulting: “Di ba alam mo Property ito? Alam mo ba ang ibig sabihin ng property?” When the complainant answered that she knew, but that she was directed there by the guard and the male staff, the respondent allegedly retorted: “Kasi kung dito yan di sana kanina pa tayo nagkakaintindihan, kaso nga hindi dito.” Feeling insulted and angry, the complainant then expressed her dismay, saying “Bastos ka, bastos ka, hindi ka pala magandang makipagusap, bastos ka talaga!”

The complainant stated that immediately after the incident, and on the same day, she filed a handwritten sworn letter-complaint. She also claimed that when she wrote the complaint, she was still trembling from anger.

Filing of the Complaint and Submission of Pleadings

On March 15, 2004, the Court’s Office of Administrative Services directed the respondent to submit her comment on the letter-complaint. The respondent complied by filing a letter-comment dated March 16, 2004, submitted on March 17, 2004.

In her comment, the respondent denied that she acted discourteously. However, she admitted that at the time she was unable to comprehend what the complainant was requesting. She maintained that she tried to answer courteously and that no word of insult had come from her. She stated instead that she believed the insult originated from the complainant. She also alleged that the incident was witnessed by officemates who could testify that she was not discourteous.

The complainant filed her Reply on April 13, 2004, affirming her original allegations and asserting that the respondent distorted the facts to conceal the truth. The complainant reiterated her willingness to submit to formal investigation. The record also included a letter signed by several officemates expressing support for the respondent and stating their belief that she did not commit the charged acts.

Investigation and Evidence Presented

The investigation commenced, and the respondent maintained her position during testimony. She denied the alleged acts and added that she would not entertain an amicable settlement if she were at fault. She further claimed she did not raise her voice during the encounter.

When the complainant testified, she explained that she filed the complaint to ensure that the Court would take proper disciplinary action against erring employees. She acknowledged that her initial effort was to draw the matter to the attention of the Chief of the Property Division, but she testified that no head or chief of office appeared and no one informed her who the chief was. She stated that she would not have filed the complaint, knowing it would require time and effort, had the respondent dealt with her properly.

Two employees of the Property Division were likewise summoned as witnesses. They held desks nearest to the respondent and were present during the afternoon in question. Their testimony, as established by the Office, showed that they only became aware of the complainant when she shouted loudly. They stated they did not know what transpired before the shouting and did not hear the conversation prior to the outburst because they were busy with their work.

OAS Findings and the Court’s Evaluation

After careful evaluation, the OAS found the respondent discourteous in the manner she conversed and dealt with the complainant and recommended a reprimand. The Court agreed with the OAS findings and recommendation.

The Court reasoned that, because the witnesses did not actually hear the conversation before the complainant shouted, the case turned on the credibility of the parties and, more particularly, on which version was more credible. The Court observed that the respondent did not deny that when the complainant greeted her “Good Afternoon,” she responded “Ano yon.” The Court also noted that the respondent did not squarely deny that when asked where the complainant could secure accreditation of a bonding company, she remarked with sarcasm: “Di ba alam mo Property ito? Alam mo ba ang ibig sabihin ng property?” and added: “Ang layo layo ng property sa surety bond na hinahanap mo.”

The Court characterized these remarks as thinly-veiled sarcasm and held them to be clearly discourteous. It also reasoned that, if the respondent truly did not comprehend the complainant’s inquiry, she should have courteously ended the discussion to prevent the incident from escalating. In light of the complainant’s positive account made immediately after the incident, which the respondent did not confront effectively, the Court found substantial evidence to find guilt.

At the same time, the Court assessed the overall gravity of the conduct. It held that the respondent’s conduct could be characterized as plain and simple discourtesy, emphasizing that the respondent did not raise her voice at the complainant. Thus, while guilt was established, the appropriate penalty under the administrative classification for first offenses required a lesser sanction.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the administrative standards governing public service conduct. It stated that public officials and employees are obliged to perform their duties honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their ability. Because they are recipients of the public trust, they must demonstrate courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in official dealings even when confronted with rudeness or insulting behavior. It further stressed, in particular, that court employees must observe strict propriety and decorum in dealing with other people and that there is no room for discourtesy within the ranks of court personnel.

On the classification of the offense and penalty, the Court applied Sec. 23 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which provides that discourtesy in the course of official duties is a light offense. Under Sec. 23, for a first offense, the penalty is reprimand.

Doctrinal Ta

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 2004-09-SC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant, Brenda B. Narvasa-Kampana, filed a letter-complaint against Ms. Norma C. Josue, Buyer IV of the Property Division of the Court.
The complaint sought administrative discipline for alleged discourtesy and conduct unbecoming a court employee.
The administrative case began with a letter-complaint dated March 11, 2004.
The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) required the respondent to file a comment, which the respondent submitted on March 17, 2004 through a letter filed with this Office on that date.
The complainant then filed a reply on April 13, 2004, and the investigation proceeded.
The OAS found the respondent discourteous and recommended reprimand.
The Court adopted the OAS findings, found the respondent liable, and imposed the penalty of reprimand, with a warning.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant went to the Centennial Building on March 11, 2004 and asked a guard where she could get a certification for the accreditation of a bonding company.
The guard directed the complainant to the Property Division to look for a person named Norma.
Upon entering the Property Division, the complainant approached a male staff who also directed her to go to Norma.
The complainant testified that she greeted the respondent “Good Afternoon”, and the respondent answered “Ano yon?”.
The complainant further testified that she inquired “Dito ba kinukuha ang certification ng accreditation ng isang insurance or bonding company?”, but the respondent did not understand and asked “Kaso ba yan?”.
The complainant stated that she replied “Yes, Probate ng last will”, and she felt that the respondent became increasingly confused.
The complainant alleged that during their conversation the respondent acted with sarcasm and an insulting attitude.
The complainant claimed that the respondent, with facial expressions and remarks, asked: “Di ba alam mo Property ito? Alam mo ba ang ibig sabihin ng property?”.
The complainant asserted that she answered she understood but explained she was there because she was directed to the respondent.
The complainant testified that the respondent responded: “Kasi kung dito yan di sana kanina pa tayo nagkakaintindihan, kaso nga hindi dito.”
The complainant stated that she felt insulted and grew very angry, particularly when the respondent sarcastically questioned the meaning of “Property.”
The complainant uttered a curse in reaction and filed the complaint the same day, stating she was still trembling in anger when she wrote the handwritten sworn complaint.
The respondent denied being discourteous but admitted that she could not comprehend what the complainant was requesting at that time.
The respondent acknowledged that she claimed she tried to answer courteously and that she did not utter any insult.
The respondent asserted that it was the complainant who first shouted at her, and she alleged a prior loud exchange in which the complainant reportedly remarked: “Hindi ko gusto tabas ng dila mo ikaw ang tinuro tapos sasabihin mo, hindi mo ko naiintindihan. Bastos kang kausap!”
The respondent also maintained that she did not raise her voice and that no improper conduct occurred.
Several officemates signed a letter supporting the respondent and expressed belief that the respondent did not commit the charged acts.

Evidence and Credibility Assessment

The Court held that the testimonies of witnesses mattered because the two employee-witnesses did not hear the conversation preceding the complainant’s shouting.
The two employees testified that they only noticed the complainant when she began shouting loudly.
The witnesses stated that they did not know what transpired before the shouting and did not hear the earlier conversation because they were busy with their own work.
The Court therefore ruled that the outcome turned on the credibility of the parties, not on the limited corroboration from the witnesses.
The Court found that the respondent did not deny that, after the complainant greeted her, the respondent replied “Ano yon?”.
The Court also found that the respondent did not squarely deny that, in response to the inquiry about accreditation, the respondent asked: “Di ba ala