Court employee suspended for hitting man with chair

The Supreme Court ordered the three-month suspension without pay of its utility worker after he was found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a court employee when he hit a man with a chair during a confrontation more than a year ago.

The Office of the Chief Justice received a letter of complaint from Nilo Esparas alleging that Dhavid Jhon Javier, who holds the position Utility Worker II of the Production Planning Section and Printing Services, assaulted him on 27 December 2019.

The incident happened barely two months after Javier was appointed to his position on 28 October 2019.

Esparas claimed Javier knocked him unconscious after he was hit by a metal chair on the head during the Christmas party of the Homeowners Association of Gardenville Subdivision in Carsadang Bago, Imus City, Cavite.

After the festivities, some of the homeowners association officers, including Esparas, stayed behind for a drinking and karaoke session.

Javier, who was also in a drinking session with a different group inside the same covered court, approached them and complained about their noise.

Esparas responded that the karaoke machine will be turned off once all queued songs have finished playing.

After wrapping up their session, one of Esparas’ companions, Ruben del Monte, went on to switch off the covered court spotlight in the multi-purpose room. However, he turned off instead the street light that dimmed the entire covered court.

The inadvertent act prompted Javier’s group to confront Esparas and his companions that led to the chair-hitting complaint.

Deputy Clerk of Court chief administrative officer Maria Carina Cunanan said the mere denial of Javier cannot prevail over the positive declarations of witnesses while photographs presented showed the severe head injury of Esparas and the amount of blood on the chairs and floor.

She also noted how the incident transpired barely two months into Javier’s appointment to a permanent position in the Supreme Court.

Further, Javier’s act fell short of the exacting standards of morality and decency expected of court employees and the behavior he exhibited was contrary to the ideals provided in the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and Code of Ethics for Public Officials and Employees.