Court Interpreter Suspended for Incompetent Translations: A Lesson in Judicial Accountability

The Supreme Court has reminded all court personnel that public office is a public trust, and nowhere is this more exacting than in the judiciary. In a 2019 decision, the Court held a court interpreter administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of her official duties, resulting in a three-month suspension without pay. The case underscores the vital importance of accurate translation in court proceedings, where a single erroneous interpretation can determine the fate of a litigant.

The Case: A Complaint Against a Court Interpreter

The case arose from an anonymous complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Emiliana A. Lumilang, a Court Interpreter III at the Regional Trial Court, 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 testimonies given in the Visayan dialect into English.

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

The complaint also alleged that Lumilang was arrogant in the workplace, citing an incident where she angrily told a lawyer requesting a copy of the TSN, "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 matter to Acting Executive Judge Dennis Z. Alcantar for a more thorough investigation.

Judge Alcantar's investigation revealed a different picture. Interviews and conferences with court personnel and lawyers who appeared before Branch 10 consistently showed Lumilang's incompetence in performing her job as court interpreter. She had repeatedly failed to accurately translate statements and testimonies given in the Visayan dialect into English.

The OCA adopted these findings, noting that lawyers attested to Lumilang's recklessness and repeated mistakes in interpreting testimonies. She had 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 court. Despite these warnings, she failed to show any improvement.

The Ruling: Inefficiency and Incompetence

The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's findings and recommendation. The Court emphasized that the Constitution mandates all public officers and employees to serve with responsibility, integrity, and efficiency, and that those working in the Judiciary must be examples of responsibility, competence, and efficiency.

The Court rejected Lumilang's defense that her task was merely to translate what she heard during hearings and that she had been performing her duties faithfully. Her bare assertions did not disprove her incompetence and inefficiency, which were matters of record.

The Court stressed the grave consequences of erroneous interpretation: "An erroneous interpretation of testimonies given in open court, 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."

Under Section 46(B) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties is a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. However, considering that this was Lumilang's first infraction, the Court imposed the lighter penalty of three months' suspension without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Accuracy in court interpretation is non-negotiable. A court interpreter's role is critical to the administration of justice. Erroneous translations can affect the outcome of a case, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or acquittals.

• Court personnel are held to exacting standards. The judiciary demands moral righteousness and uprightness from everyone connected with it, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. Any conduct that diminishes public faith in the Judiciary shall not be countenanced.

• Incompetence and inefficiency are grave offenses. Under the RRACCS, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties is classified as a grave offense, punishable by suspension or even dismissal for repeat offenses.

• Failure to improve despite feedback aggravates liability. The Court noted that Lumilang failed to show an honest effort to improve herself despite repeated complaints from lawyers and an unsatisfactory performance rating.

• First-time offenders may receive mitigated penalties. While the prescribed penalty for inefficiency and incompetence is six months and one day to one year of suspension, the disciplining authority may consider mitigating circumstances, such as it being the employee's first infraction.

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