Court Employees Must Treat Lawyers With Respect and Courtesy, Supreme Court Rules

A routine request to withdraw a cash bond in a Davao del Sur trial court ended not with a released deposit but with an administrative complaint and a Supreme Court ruling on how court personnel must behave toward the lawyers and litigants they serve. In Atty. Roel O. Paras v. Myrna F. Lofranco (A.M. No. P-01-1469, March 26, 2001), the Court reprimanded a clerk for discourtesy, making clear that decorum in the judiciary runs in both directions — but that public servants bear the heavier duty.

What Happened

On February 28, 1997, Atty. Roel O. Paras went to Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court in Digos, Davao del Sur, to withdraw a cash bond posted for a client in a criminal case pending before another branch. He approached Myrna F. Lofranco, a Clerk III, believing she handled the release of cash bonds.

The accounts of what followed diverge sharply. According to the complaint, when Paras asked whether the signatory present could withdraw the amount and whether the bank account was joint, Lofranco answered sarcastically that she did not know and that he was not the only person withdrawing there, telling him to come back on Monday. Later, after he returned with receipts, she allegedly remarked in front of other employees and a judge that he was a lawyer and should know the requirements.

Lofranco gave a different version. She claimed Paras arrived drunk, raised his voice, lectured her on bank accounts, and eventually called her "crazy." She admitted answering him back arrogantly, explaining that she felt embarrassed by his conduct.

The Issue Before the Court

The question was whether the respondent's acts and utterances amounted to discourtesy and conduct unbecoming a court employee. Because neither party presented corroborating witnesses, the case turned on credibility — whose account of the confrontation the Court would believe.

What the Court Ruled

The Supreme Court sided substantially with the complainant. It found it unlikely that a person would anger easily unless provoked, and it gave credence to the claim that Lofranco responded with disrespect and sarcasm. Even assuming the lawyer grew irritated, the Court held, that was no excuse for her to treat him arrogantly — a gesture she effectively admitted when she testified that she answered him back arrogantly because of how he approached her.

The Court also found that the complainant himself acted improperly. He made provocative remarks, and it appeared he lacked complete documents when he first approached the clerk. But his own lapse did not justify her discourtesy. The Court noted that her remark emphasizing that he was a lawyer and should know the requirements was unnecessary and inappropriate, and that embarrassment was not a valid excuse. As a public officer rendering public service, she could have defused the situation by graciously ending the discussion.

The Court restated the standard governing everyone in the judicial service, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk: conduct must always be beyond reproach and marked by propriety and decorum, so as to earn and keep public respect and confidence in the judiciary. Citing its earlier ruling in Policarpio v. Fortus (248 SCRA 272, 1995), it stressed that public officials and employees must demonstrate courtesy, civility, and self-restraint at all times, even when confronted with rudeness and insulting behavior. Losing one's temper through loud, unsavory remarks has no place in government service.

The Court found Lofranco guilty of discourtesy and conduct unbecoming a court employee and reprimanded her, warning that any similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely. The decision was ordered noted in her personal record. A separate allegation that she had previously been reported in a local newspaper for misbehavior was disregarded for lack of substantiation.

Why This Case Still Matters

The ruling reflects a settled principle in Philippine administrative law: court personnel are not ordinary employees. They are front-line representatives of the justice system, and their demeanor shapes public trust in the courts. Discourtesy in the performance of official duty is a disciplinable offense, and the Civil Service Law and related issuances supply the standards for conduct in public service. The case also cuts both ways — lawyers are expected to be prepared and courteous, but their own failings do not license retaliation by court staff.

Practical Takeaways

• Court employees at every level must treat lawyers and litigants with courtesy and self-restraint, even when the other party is rude or unprepared.
• Discourtesy in the performance of official duty is a ground for administrative liability, ranging from reprimand to suspension.
• Lawyers should bring complete requirements and proper authorization, but missing documents do not excuse disrespectful treatment by court personnel.
• A single incident, if proven, can lead to discipline; unsubstantiated allegations of past misconduct will not be considered.
• The duty of propriety and decorum applies to the entire judiciary, from judges to the lowest clerk.

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