Maintaining Decorum: Court Employees and the Duty of Ethical Conduct

The Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded everyone in the judiciary—from judges to the most junior clerk—that their conduct carries a heavy burden of responsibility. In Wee v. Bunao, Jr. (A.M. No. P-08-2487 and A.M. No. P-08-2493, September 29, 2010), the Court made that reminder concrete: two court employees who traded insults inside a courtroom were both fined and reprimanded for simple misconduct.

What Happened

Sheriff Tanching L. Wee was the private complainant in a criminal case pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino. His wife, Nelita, had testified as a witness. On August 7, 2007, she was set to be cross-examined, but before the session began, she spoke with the prosecutor about correcting an entry in the transcript of stenographic notes—her answer, she said, should have been "No" instead of "Yes."

Court Interpreter Virgilio T. Bunao, Jr. overheard the conversation and insisted the answer was "Yes." An exchange followed. According to the complaint, Sheriff Wee told Bunao that he was "just an interpreter" and should not meddle; Bunao replied that he was the interpreter in that court. Insults were exchanged in the local dialect, and Sheriff Wee allegedly tried to attack Bunao but was restrained by his wife. Bunao gave a different account, claiming it was Sheriff Wee who went "berserk" and uttered vulgar words. The incident took place in the session hall, in the presence of a judge and an assistant prosecutor.

Both sides filed administrative complaints against each other. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) consolidated the cases and referred them to an investigating judge.

The Investigating Judge's Recommendation

The investigating judge found that nothing unusual had happened—just people shouting at each other out of irritation—and recommended that both complaints be dismissed. He noted the parties had not committed grave misconduct and described the incident as isolated.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court disagreed and adopted the OCA's recommendation instead.

The Court held that the conduct of both Sheriff Wee and Interpreter Bunao fell short of the standard required of judicial personnel. Shouting at one another in the workplace during office hours, the Court said, is "arrant discourtesy and disrespect" not only toward co-workers but toward the court itself. Fighting among court employees is a disgraceful behavior that reflects adversely on the judiciary's image.

The Court stressed that the conduct of every official and employee involved in the administration of justice "should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility." Their behavior must at all times be characterized by strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep public respect for the judiciary. This standard applies not only to how court employees deal with the public but also to how they deal with one another. Conduct violating that standard, the Court warned, "quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts."

Both were found liable for simple misconduct—defined in the decision as a transgression of an established rule of action, or unlawful behavior by a public officer. Under Section 23(b) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, simple misconduct is a less grave offense carrying suspension of one month and one day to six months for a first offense, and dismissal for a second.

Notably, the Court imposed a lighter penalty than the range suggested by the rules: a fine of P1,000 each, plus reprimand and a stern warning that a repeat offense would be dealt with more severely. The Court noted that in previous cases involving court personnel fighting within court premises, it had imposed the same fine with reprimand.

Why This Matters

The case illustrates that decorum in the judiciary is not merely a matter of etiquette. The courts depend on public confidence, and that confidence is eroded when the people who work in courthouses—regardless of rank or position—behave badly toward each other in the very place where disputes are supposed to be resolved peacefully. The decision also shows that administrative liability can attach even without grave misconduct; a single incident of shouting and insulting a co-worker inside court premises was enough.

Practical takeaways

• Court employees are held to a strict standard of propriety and decorum at all times—not only in dealings with the public but also with co-workers.
• Shouting matches, foul language, and fighting inside court premises can lead to administrative liability for simple misconduct.
• Simple misconduct is a less grave offense; the rules prescribe suspension for a first offense, though the Court may impose a fine depending on the circumstances.
• A reprimand and stern warning are serious: a repeat offense is treated more severely.
• Self-restraint is expected even when a court employee is confronted with rudeness or provocation.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.