Court Interpreter Suspended for Incompetent Translations in RTC Malaybalay

The Supreme Court has reminded all court personnel that public office is a public trust, and those working in the Judiciary must be examples of responsibility, competence, and efficiency. In a 2019 decision, the Court held a court interpreter administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, suspending her for three months without pay. The case underscores the critical role of accurate translation in court proceedings, where a single error can affect the outcome of a case and the liberty of an accused.

The Case Against the Court Interpreter

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an anonymous complaint against Emiliana A. Lumilang, Court Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. The complaint alleged that Lumilang had a very poor command of the English language and could not be relied upon to properly translate into English the testimonies of litigants and witnesses who spoke in the Visayan dialect.

As a result, the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) contained erroneously translated testimonies. On several occasions, lawyers themselves had to interpret the testimonies of their own witnesses from Visayan to English just to ensure the record reflected the correct statements. The complaint warned that grossly erroneous translations could put an innocent person in jail.

The complaint also accused Lumilang of arrogance, citing an incident where she angrily responded to a lawyer's request for a copy of the TSN, saying, "I have a lot of work to do, I am fed up, I cannot do it anymore."

The Investigation and Findings

The case underwent two investigations. The first, conducted by Executive Judge Josefina G. Bacal, recommended dismissal of the complaint. However, the OCA found the report insufficient and referred the case to Acting Executive Judge Dennis Z. Alcantar for a more thorough investigation.

Judge Alcantar's investigation revealed that several interviews and conferences with court personnel and lawyers who appeared before Branch 10 invariably showed Lumilang's incompetence in performing her job as court interpreter. She had not been able to correctly and accurately translate into English the statements and testimonies given in the Visayan dialect, and she failed to give a satisfactory explanation for this.

The OCA also noted that lawyers attested to Lumilang's recklessness and repeated mistakes. She received an "Unsatisfactory" rating for the semester January to June 2009 from the Clerk of Court and had been informed of her deficiency by lawyers with pending cases before the branch. Despite this, she failed to show any improvement.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the factual findings and recommendation of the OCA. The Court emphasized that the Constitution mandates all public officers and employees to serve with responsibility, integrity, and efficiency, for public office is a public trust.

Citing Judge Domingo-Regala v. Sultan, the Court stressed that no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than the Judiciary. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach.

The Court found that Lumilang failed to meet these exacting standards. She hardly refuted the persistent accusation that she was careless, did not have a good command of the English language, and frequently erred in interpreting testimonies given in open court. Her bare assertions that she merely translates what she hears did not disprove her incompetence and inefficiency, which were matters of record.

The Court noted that Lumilang had not shown an honest-to-goodness effort to improve herself despite repeated complaints from lawyers and an unsatisfactory performance rating. The Court warned that an erroneous interpretation of testimonies, no matter how innocent, is fatal as it could affect the outcome of the case—it can either put an innocent man in jail or let a guilty offender go scot-free.

The Penalty

Section 46(B) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) classifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties as a grave offense, punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense.

However, the same rule grants the disciplining authority discretion to consider mitigating circumstances. Considering that this was Lumilang's first infraction, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for three months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

As for the allegation of arrogance, the Court held that Lumilang could not be held administratively liable in the absence of substantiating evidence, as the incident happened way back in 2008.

Practical Takeaways

• Accuracy is paramount. Court interpreters must translate testimonies accurately, as errors can directly affect the outcome of a case and the liberty of an accused person.
• Continuous improvement is expected. Court employees who receive complaints about their performance must make a genuine effort to improve, especially when rated unsatisfactory by superiors.
• Public office is a public trust. All Judiciary employees, from judges to the lowliest clerk, must serve with responsibility, integrity, and efficiency.
• First offenses may be tempered with mercy. The disciplining authority may consider mitigating circumstances, such as a first infraction, in imposing penalties.
• Evidence matters. Administrative liability requires substantiating evidence; unproven allegations, such as the claim of arrogance in this case, will not be held against an employee.

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