[A.M. No. 01-2-03-SC. January 30, 2002]
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JAN
30 2002.
A.M. No. 01-2-03-SC (Spouses Edgardo
and Anna Gonzales vs. Leo Rabanillo, Construction and Maintenance General
Foreman, Halls of Justice, Quezon City.)
In an unsworn
letter-complaint dated September 5, 2000 addressed to Atty. Luzviminda Puno,
Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, Spouses Edgardo and Anna Gonzales charged
Engr. Leo Rabanillo, Maintenance Supervisor at the Hall of Justice of Quezon
City with misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming of an employee in the judiciary
alleging that on August 26, 2000 while they were having some fun with their
friends near their home Leo Rabanillo (Rabanillo, for short) suddenly rushed
towards Edgardo Gonzales (Edgardo, for short) and shouted bad words and
invectives at the latter. When Anna Gonzales (Anna, for brevity) went to her
husband he (Rabanillo) also shouted bad words and other invectives at her. Not
content, Rabanillo grabbed Edgardo by the shirt and hit him several times.
Rabanillo likewise hit Edgardo on the eyebrow with a bottle of beer causing a
one (1)-inch wound requiring six stitches to close. Edgardo thereafter filed a
criminal case of serious physical injuries against Rabanillo in the City
Prosecutor’s Office of Quezon City. Leo Rabanillo only laughed at the case
instituted against him because he claimed it would not prosper, as he is
“untouchable” being an employee of the Hall of Justice.
Complainants Spouses Gonzales requested that an administrative sanction
be imposed against Leo Rabanillo, as his continued stay in the Supreme Court
will bring only shame and bad reputation to the office. They likewise claimed
that Leo Rabanillo is a notorious troublemaker, that he often got drunk
resulting in his quarreling with his neighbors, including them.[1]
In the letter-answer dated January 2, 2001 respondent Engr. Leo B.
Rabanillo, alleged that the letter-complaint of Spouses Edgardo and Anna
Gonzales was nothing but a clear harassment as their accusations were baseless
and mere fabrications; that as one of the Street Coordinators in their
Homeowners’ Association he was determined to offer all his best, without
receiving any compensation from the Association, to attain a peaceful and
harmonious atmosphere in their subdivision; that he was not a notorious
troublemaker and boastful father; that it was the complainants Spouses Edgardo
and Anna Gonzales who slapped him and threatened him; that the Spouses Gonzales
still “adopt their life-orientation when they used to live in a squatter’s area
in Quezon City”; that Edgardo Gonzales exemplifies the nature of a street
fighter for he earns his living as a public utility jeepney driver; that
Edgardo Gonzales’ personality is a picture of a professional squatter, a
gambler and uneducated person who enjoys vexing a peaceful and educated person.
He prayed that his name be cleared of the accusations made against him by
Spouses Edgardo and Anna Gonzales.[2] Attached to his letter-answer were the
following:
a) A certification issued by the North Olympus Neighborhood Association,
Phase IV Inc., represented by its president Joel B. See-Sante, stating that Leo
B. Rabanillo is an officer of their association and that his designation as
Street Coordinator was based on his good record as a Homeowner, moral integrity
and people-person personality;[3]
b) A letter signed by the neighbors of Engr. Leo Bugayong Rabanillo of
Block 13 Lot 36 Chopin Street, North Olympus, Phase IV, Novaliches, Quezon City
indicating their vehement and categorical denial on the allegation that subject
homeowner concurrently their street coordinator is a troublemaker and that the
allegation is unfounded and baseless;[4]
c) A letter addressed to Mr. See-Sante, bearing the signatures of
homeowners of Chopin St., Phase 4, North Olympus Subdivision, Zabarte Road,
Bgy. Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon City attesting that their neighbor Spouses
Edgardo and Ana Calora of Blk. 13, Lot 42, Chopin St., Phase 4, North Olympus
Subdivision are trouble makers, vexatious and recalcitrant persons;[5]
and
d) A medico-legal certificate dated August 27, 2000 from the East Avenue
Medical Center showing that he was treated for abrasions on the knees and on
the forearm.[6]
On January 5 and 8,
2001, Atty. Eden Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative
Officer conducted an investigation. Quoted hereunder is her report and
recommendation dated February 5, 2001, to wit:
“xxx xxx xxx
“In
the case at bar, there is no doubt that respondent Rabanillo failed to live up
to the strictest standard expected of an employee of the Judiciary.
“Complainant
are ordinary people, and perhaps even unschooled who have no reason to fabricate
a complaint against respondent Rabanillo, unless it was true. On the other
hand, respondent is a registered Engineer and he may with his stature have
reasons to harass and/or demean the complainants. This is evidenced by the fact
that respondent without any provocation from the complainant picked a fight
with them.
“Respondent’s
defense that he went to the house of the complainants purposely to pacify Mr.
Gonzales is suspect. First, why did he shout invective words to call
complainant’s attention, if his purpose was to settle a disagreement. Secondly,
after Mr. Gonzales was about to enter their house, apparently evading him
(Rabanillo) there was no more reason for him to proceed after Mr. Gonzales,
lest his intention was otherwise.
“Besides,
there was nothing in the allegations of the respondent which would show that
complainants were the ones who initiated the fight. In all probabilities, it
was provoked by respondent Rabanillo.
“It is
interesting to note that this was not the first time respondent was reported in
this Office. In the first instance, he was likewise involved in an altercation
with an officemate in the Halls of Justice, Quezon City. As a consequence, he
was warned by the Committee of his actuations that a repetition of a similar
act in the future will be dealt with severely.
“Based
on the records in this Office, respondent Rabanillo is only a casual employee,
thus his employment may be terminated anytime for a cause. Respondent should
have known that employment in the Judiciary is not an easy task. One has to
live with the strictest norms and standards not only in his official actuations
but in his private life as well. As earlier stated, the image of the Court is
essentially mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who work thereat.
“Premises
considered, this Office most respectfully recommends that Engr. Leo Rabanillo,
Construction and Maintenance General Foreman, Halls of Justice, Quezon City, be
SUSPENDED for one (1) week without pay with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
“xxx xxx xxx.”
In the investigation conducted on January 5, 2001, complainant Edgardo
C. Gonzales admitted that he is a jeepney driver while his wife Anna runs a
business. They related the events leading to the day of the incident and they
described what Leo is like, especially when drunk. They claimed that they have
never been involved in any trouble in the subdivision, except during the time
that their son was maltreated, contrary to the allegation of Rabanillo.[7]
Leo B. Rabanillo, during the investigation dated January 8, 2001,
claimed that he was the aggrieved party and that he was merely trying to pacify
Edgardo Gonzales on the day in question. He denied being a troublemaker.[8]
In the memorandum-report of Atty. Candelaria she recommended the
suspension of Engr. Leo B. Rabanillo for one (1) week without pay, with a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.[9]
In its resolution of March 26, 2001 the Court took note of the
memorandum and recommendation of Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative
Officer Eden t. Candelaria.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that the conduct and behavior of
everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is
circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. The employee’s actions at
all times must be characterized by propriety and decorum and must be above
suspicion.[10] (Emphasis
supplied) The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the
conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the
judge to the least and lowest of its personnel, hence it becomes the imperative
sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and
standing as a true temple of justice.[11]
WHEREFORE, for conduct
unbecoming of an employee of the Judiciary, Engr. Leo B. Rabanillo is hereby
suspended for one (1) week without pay. He is further warned that a repetition
of the same or similar infractions would be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very
truly yours,
(Sgd.)
TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of
Court