Case Digest: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE PARDO, Et Al.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE MOISES M. PARDO AND CLERK OF COURT JESSIE W. TULDAGUE, RTC-CABARROGUIS, QUIRINO (FORMERLY LETTER-COMPLAINT OF JUDGE MOISES M. PARDO, EXEC. JUDGE, RTC-CABARROGUIS, QUIRINO AGAINST ATTY. JESSIE W. TULDAGUE, CLERK OF COURT, SAME COURT)

553 SCRA 40 (2008)

An employee of the judiciary is expected to accord respect for the person and rights of others at all times, and his every act and word characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.

Respondent Judge Moises Pardo wrote letter complaint addressed to the Deputy Court Administrator Jose Perez. The letter refers to Grave and Disrespectful conduct of Atty. Jessie Tuldague, Clerk of Court, in the conduct of raffle of cases by calling only the OIC Branch Clerks of Court and only copy furnishing Judge Moises Pardo. For his part, Atty. Tuldague denied that the notice was disrespectful as he has been using such kind of notice for the past years without Judge Pardo questioning it. Atty. Tuldague further claims that Judge Pardo filed a letter complaint in retaliation for his filing of an administrative complaint against the latter. The OCA recommended that Atty. Tuldague be found guilty and be reprimanded.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the OCA erred in finding Atty. Tuldague guilty of the offense charged

HELD:

The Court finds that respondent Tuldague is guilty of gross discourtesy in the course of official duties under Rule IV, Section 52 (B) (3) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for failure to accord respect for the person and rights of the Judge.

In Amane v. Atty. Mendoza-Arce, the Court had the occasion to expound on the matter where it held that an employee of the judiciary is expected to accord respect for the person and rights of others at all times, and his every act and word characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. Government service is people-oriented and where high-strung and belligerent behavior is not allowed. No matter how commendable respondent’s motives may be, as a public officer, courtesy should be his policy always.