Insubordination, an administrative offense

The Court, in Clemente vs. Bautista, Clerk III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 48, Pasay City, stated:
All directives coming from the Court Administrator and his deputies are issued in the exercise of this Court's administrative supervision of trial courts and their personnel, hence, should be respected. These directives are not mere requests but should be complied with promptly and completely. Clearly, respondent's indefensible disregard of the orders of the OCA, as well as of the complainant and Judge Manodon, for him to comment on the complaint and to explain his infractions, shows his disrespect for and contempt, not just for the OCA, but also for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA. His indifference to, and disregard of, the directives issued to him clearly constituted insubordination. (A.M. NO. P-10-2879, June 03, 2013, citing 22Gonzalez v. Torres, A.M. NO. MTJ-06-1653, July 30, 2007)
In Mendoza vs. Tablizo, the Court likewise held:
Tablizo's contumacious refusal to comment on the administrative cases filed against him is glaring proof of his recalcitrance and stubbornness to obey legitimate orders of the Court, as well as his utter disregard of the Court's power of administrative supervision over its employees. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. This Court, being the agency exclusively vested by the Constitution with administrative supervision over all courts, can hardly discharge its constitutional mandate of overseeing judges and court personnel and taking proper administrative sanction against them if the judge or personnel concerned does not even recognize its administrative authority. (A.M. NO. P-08-2553, August 28, 2009)

Popular Posts