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)
