Upholding Decorum: Supreme Court Fines Employee for Insubordinate and Abusive Language

The Supreme Court has long held that those who work within the Judiciary must embody the very standards of civility and professionalism that the courts demand of the public. When a court employee fails in this duty, the damage extends beyond the immediate workplace—it erodes public faith in the entire justice system. In De Joya v. Balubar (A.M. Nos. 2001-1-SC & 2001-2-SC, September 3, 2002), the Court addressed exactly this concern, imposing a fine on a Supreme Court employee who used abusive language against her co-workers.

The Facts

Marilyn I. De Joya, Chief of the Disbursement Section, and Dennis B. Cantano, a Fiscal Clerk, both worked at the Supreme Court's Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO). The respondent, Elsa T. Balubar, was the Supervising Judicial Staff Officer of the Checks and Disbursement Division.

The dispute began when the Accounting Division repeatedly requested Balubar to furnish a Statement of Cancelled Checks. When she failed to comply, De Joya prepared a memorandum reiterating the request. On October 16, 2000, Balubar went to the Accounting Division and, in a loud and angry voice, allegedly uttered vulgar words against De Joya, including profanities and a threat to slap her. She also reportedly called Cantano "gago" (fool) and berated him for receiving documents.

Balubar denied using such language, admitting only that she spoke in a loud voice. She claimed the requests had already been complied with and that the records were with the Accounting Division since 1998. However, several employees executed joint affidavits corroborating the complainants' version of events.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Balubar was guilty of gross misconduct for using abusive, insulting, and threatening language toward her co-workers during office hours.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Balubar guilty of gross misconduct and imposed a fine of P10,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely. She was also directed to comply with the memorandum dated September 7, 2000 within five days.

The Court gave full credence to the joint affidavits of the complainants' witnesses, noting that the majority of the Accounting employees would not have executed such statements if they were not true. There was no showing that these employees were motivated by ill will to fabricate charges against Balubar.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court emphasized that respondent's conduct was unbecoming of a court employee, especially one holding a supervisory position. Her "bellicose remark" that she would slap De Joya did not speak well of her character. The Court reminded that prudence, restraint, and sobriety are traits expected of those in supervisory roles, even in an acting capacity.

Critically, the Court noted that De Joya was merely performing a ministerial duty in requesting the status of cancelled checks. The requests were routine transactions that could have been easily resolved through open communication. Instead, Balubar "overreacted."

The Court cited Baniqued v. Rojas (342 SCRA 1, 2000), which held that fighting with a co-employee during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the image of the judiciary. Shouting in the workplace displays a cavalier attitude toward the seriousness and dignity of court business. The Court also referenced Republic Act No. 6713, which promotes a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in public service.

Practical Takeaways

• Court employees are held to a higher standard. Working in the Judiciary demands courtesy, self-restraint, and civility at all times—even when provoked.
• Abusive language is gross misconduct. Using vulgar or insulting words against co-workers, regardless of workplace frustrations, constitutes an administrative offense.
• Supervisors must model professionalism. Those in supervisory positions, even in an acting capacity, are expected to exercise prudence and sobriety.
• Documentation matters. The complainants' case was strengthened by the joint affidavits of multiple witnesses who observed the incident.
• Routine requests should not escalate. Simple work disagreements should be resolved through proper channels and open communication, not confrontation.

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