FIRST DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1679
June 16, 2003
-versus-
BEL EDUARDO F.
NITAFAN,
PROCESS SERVER,
AND RICARDO L.
SIMEON,
SHERIFF IV,
Respondents.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
The instant administrative
matter arose from a report, dated 09 October 2002, submitted by Clerk
of
Court Jesusa P. Maningas of the Regional Trial Court of Manila pursuant
to the memorandum, dated 24 September 2002, of Executive Judge Enrico
A.
Lanzanas of the Manila Regional Trial Court.
It would appear that
at about noon on 24 September 2002, within the office premises of
Branch
19 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, an altercation between herein
respondents, Process Server Bel Eduardo F. Nitafan and Sheriff Ricardo
L. Simeon, ultimately resulted in an accidental firing of a 9-mm.
firearm
belonging to Ricardo L. Simeon. The incident started when Nitafan
approached
Simeon to ask for the exact location of Cabangis Street in Tondo and
the
latter curtly answered, "ewan," in a loud voice. Irked by the reply,
Nitafan
remarked, "Anong gusto mo," to which Simeon retorted, "Ano ba’ng
problema
mo?" After Nitafan saw Simeon touch his polo shirt covering a gun
tucked
by the waist and worried that Simeon might use it, he embraced Simeon
from
behind and held his arms. Simeon explained that he only wanted to keep
the gun away from Nitafan fearing that the latter might try to take
hold
of it. While they were grappling for its possession, the gun
accidentally
fired and hit the cement floor. Subsequently, Nitafan and Simeon
themselves
settled their misunderstanding. Nitafan and Simeon would seem to have
been
good friends but Nitafan, the "quiet type," gets insecure every time
Simeon
would talk to one Ms. Janet Marcelo, a co-employee, which Nitafan
apparently
resented. The 9-mm. handgun is duly licensed in the name of Simeon, who
likewise possesses a permit to carry it, issued by the PC Firearms and
Explosives Unit, Camp Crarne, Quezon City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Memorandum dated
08 October 2002, Judge Daguna directed Simeon and Nitafan to each give
his side of the incident.cralaw:red
Simeon, in his compliance
of 11 October 2002, stated that when he was approached by Nitafan and
asked,
"Ano ba talaga and gusto mo," and he answered, "Anong problema mo
Jing,"
Nitafan kept coming towards him. At that point, he thought that Nitafan
would grab the gun tucked in his waistline, prompting him (Simeon) to
pull
and keep it away from his reach. Nitafan hugged and wrestled with him.
As soon as he felt that he could not stop Nitafan, Simeon let go of one
shot to bring Nitafan to his senses and then immediately emptied his
gun
to avoid any injury. Finally, the two settled their differences. Simeon
apologized for the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nitafan, in his compliance,
dated 11 October 2002, explained that the "bossy" attitude of Simeon
had
irritated him. His annoyance got out of hand when Simeon gave him a
curt
reply on the day the incident happened. When he confronted Simeon, and
the latter replied, "Ano bang problema mo," he realized that Simeon had
a gun. Afraid that Simeon might use the gun against him, Nitafan
embraced
Simeon but the gun went off, and the two protagonists wrestled. Later,
they talked things over and agreed to "bury the hatchet." Nitafan
likewise
apologized for the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Judge Zenaida R. Daguna,
Presiding Judge, of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, in
her
undated letter to the Court Administrator said that both Nitafan and
Simeon
were sternly admonished, Nitafan for initiating the brawl and Simeon
for
provoking the other. After taking into account the length of service of
the two respondents (more than 20 years of service in the case of
Simeon
and about 15 years of service in the case of Nitafan), their
outstanding
performance, and the fact that the subject incident had been their
first
and only misdemeanor, Judge Daguna recommended that the two erring
employees
be given a chance to make amends and to continue their faithful service
to the Judiciary.cralaw:red
On 06 November 2002,
Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas, indorsed the matter to the Office
of
the Court Administrator.cralaw:red
In their joint letter,
of 11 November 2002, addressed to Deputy Court Administrator
Christopher
O. Lock, respondents manifested that they were adopting the statements
made in their respective compliances, both dated 11 October 2002, which
they had submitted to Judge Daguna, together with the latter’s
recommendation,
in response to the directive, dated 23 October 2002, of the OCA asking
them to explain in writing why no administrative sanction should be
imposed
upon them in connection with the incident in question. Respondents
begged
for compassion and mercy and asked that they be given a chance to
rectify
their "unprofessional" behavior.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) submitted its report, dated 29 November 2002, to
the
Court, pertinent portions of which read:
"The act of
Mr. Nitafan and Mr. Simeon in engaging in a fight especially during
office
hours and within the court premises runs counter to the norms of
conduct
set forth in Sec. 4(c) of RA No. 6713. The same is unbecoming for court
employees whose conduct and behavior must at all times be characterized
by propriety and decorum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The court will
not
tolerate misconduct committed by court personnel, particularly during
office
hours and within court premises. Such misconduct shows a total lack of
respect for the court, and erodes the good image of the judiciary in
the
eyes of the public.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Both Mr. Nitafan
and
Mr. Simeon have fallen short of the standard of conduct required of
court
employees. They should be administratively held liable for fighting
with
each other as said act showed disrespect not only of their co-workers
but
also of the Court.
"Moreover,
notwithstanding
the fact that the 9-mm. firearm of Mr. Simeon is duly licensed and that
he was issued the corresponding permit to carry the same outside his
residence,
he should not have brought the same within the court’s premises as the
bringing and displaying of firearm in the court premises constitute
misconduct.
The question here is not the legality of Mr. Simeon’s carrying of his
firearm
but the propriety of his doing so while working in the Court, when his
duties as sheriff do not require that he should have his gun with him.
There is no claim, much less showing that he needs the gun for self
protection.
Moreover, the accidental firing of Mr. Simeon’s gun had placed in
danger
the lives of others who were present at the scene of the incident."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OCA, nevertheless,
after considering the long years of service of respondents, their
outstanding
performance in the judiciary, and the fact that the incident was their
first and only infraction, recommended that Nitafan and Simeon be held
administratively liable for misconduct and be ordered to pay a fine of
P2,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively, with a WARNING that a repetition
of the same act would be dealt with severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court accepts the
recommendation.cralaw:red
Misconduct is an unacceptable
behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public
officers.[1]
The due observance of the prescribed norms of behavior are demanded no
less from court personnel; indeed, they must be role models for all
those
in the public service. Respondents have fallen below this expectation.
The conduct they have exhibited at the workplace and during working
hours
is indicative of an utter lack of concern not only for each other but
also
for the court as well.[2]
It is highly reprehensible for any court personnel to engage in a
personal
confrontation, particularly during office hours, within the court
premises
where professionalism, as well as order and discipline among the ranks,
must be of utmost concern. The Court will not tolerate or condone
misconduct
on the part of any judicial officer or personnel that degrade the
dignity
of their office.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondents
Nitafan and Simeon are both held liable for simple misconduct, and each
is hereby ordered to pay a fine of, respectively, Two Thousand Pesos
(P2,000.00)
and Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition
of
any similar conduct in the future will be dealt with most severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Amosco vs. Magro, 73 SCRA 107, 1976.
[2]
Balisi-Umali vs. Peñalosa, 318 SCRA 406. |