"x x x.
In a Complaint-Affidavit, sworn on 10 March 2010, complainant Diomampo accused respondent Laribo [Jr.] of spreading malicious and degrading words against her, in violation of the norms of ethics and conduct expected of public officials and employees. The uttered words were:
“Kabayan, wala ng kasarap sarap si Shirley. Napag iiyot ko na yan. Wala na pagmamalaki sakin yan.”
Complainant Diomampo disclosed that the uncalled for utterance came to her knowledge thru Sandiganbayan Security Guard Rosita P. Domingo, which information was relayed to the latter by co-security guard Herminigildo Andal. Both executed their respective affidavits which now form part of the records of the case. Complainant Diomampo further averred that she never had an affair with respondent Laribo [Jr.] nor had any sexual contact with him.
Respondent Laribo [Jr.] admitted his guilt, saying the remarks were uttered in jest and in good faith that will be treated as a chat between two mature and responsible male adults. He affirms the statement of complainant Diomampo that they never had an affair or any sexual contact. He begged complainant Diomampo to find a space in her heart for forgiveness and promised that the same will not be repeated. Respondent Laribo [Jr.] also asserted that this is his first infraction and requested that his admission of guilt be considered to mitigate the penalty and/or the dismissal of the charge.
In her 9 July 2010 Reply-Affidavit, complainant Diomampo also alleged receiving a text message, which respondent Laribo [Jr.] claims to have been sent by his eleven (11) year old child, using his cellphone with the following words:
“yak nakakadiri ka! Tglan mo na pmilya namin. Ang lkas ng loob mo magalit sa papa ko eh isa ka lng namang kabet!”[2]
x x x.
The Court’s Ruling
We approve the OCA’s findings and modify its recommendations.
Laribo, Jr. admits that he indeed uttered the words attributed to him. However, he denies that there was a malicious intent to malign Diomampo’s honor and reputation. Laribo, Jr. characterized the conversation between Herminigildo Andal (Andal) and himself as “a mere jest of a joke in the nature of a chat between two (2) responsible and mature male adults.”[5] Andal opposed Laribo, Jr.’s characterization. In his supplemental affidavit, Andal stated that Laribo, Jr. “was very serious and with all zealousness when he blurted those words that indeed malign the reputation and dignity of the complainant [Diomampo] not only as a person but being a married woman and a mother at that,” and “those words referring to complainant [Diomampo] x x x [were] not in jest nor in a joking manner but rather with all candor and seriousness like that of a man scorn[ed] by a woman.”[6]
Laribo, Jr.’s utterances, and not his intent, are at issue in the present case. By themselves, the utterances are malicious and cast aspersion upon Diomampo’s character. We cannot countenance such behavior. Thus, we sanction Laribo, Jr. for his disgraceful and immoral conduct.[7] Since such conduct is classified as a grave offense, the penalty for the first offense is suspension from 6 months and 1 day to 1 year.[8] We temper the OCA’s recommended penalty and take into account that this is Laribo, Jr.’s first infraction. We impose on Laribo, Jr. a penalty of one month suspension.
The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the women and men who work in the judiciary, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel.[9] Like the rest of the personnel of the Court, the shuttle bus drivers are expected to observe the norms and ethics of conduct of public officials and employees.[10] Judiciary employees should be circumspect in how they conduct themselves inside and outside the office.[11] Any scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people’s esteem for the judiciary is unbecoming of an employee.[12] Court employees aresupposed to be well-mannered, civil and considerate in their actuations.[13]
We also remind Laribo, Jr. of his status as a casual employee. Paragraph 11 of Memorandum Circular No. 07-2003 (Prescribing the Guidelines and Rules of Conduct to be Observed by the Shuttle Bus Drivers) provides:
11. As casual employees of the Court, the shuttle bus drivers do not enjoy security of tenure. Their continuity in the service depends upon their conduct and performance in office. Hence, they shall strive to attain [a] high degree of excellence in their personal conduct and in the discharge and execution of their official duties.
A casual employment status under the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions is defined as an employment “issued only for essential and necessary services where there are not enough regular staff to meet the demands of the service.”[14] Laribo, Jr. cannot be dismissed except for cause enumerated in Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations and other pertinent laws. However, in the event that Laribo, Jr.’s term as a casual employee expires while he is serving his suspension, there is the possibility that Laribo, Jr.’s services may no longer be engaged thereafter.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Felipe C. Laribo, Jr., Shuttle Bus Driver, Sandiganbayan,GUILTY of disgraceful and immoral conduct and SUSPEND him for one month with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
