In Complaint Against Emiliana A. Lumilang, the Supreme Court addressed the critical role of court interpreters in ensuring fair and accurate judicial proceedings. The Court found Emiliana A. Lumilang, a court interpreter, guilty of inefficiency and incompetence due to her poor command of the English language, which led to errors in translating testimonies. As a result, Lumilang was suspended for three months without pay, underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining high standards of competence and accountability among its personnel. This decision emphasizes that even unintentional errors in translation can significantly impact the outcome of legal cases, potentially leading to unjust results. The ruling serves as a stern reminder that those working in the Judiciary must possess the necessary skills and diligence to uphold the integrity of the legal process, reinforcing public trust in the administration of justice.

When Words Matter Most: Ensuring Accuracy in Court Translations

The case revolves around an anonymous complaint filed against Emiliana A. Lumilang, a Court Interpreter III in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, alleging incompetence and misconduct. The core issue was whether Lumilang’s performance met the standards required of a court interpreter, specifically her ability to accurately translate Visayan testimonies into English. The complainant claimed that her poor English skills led to erroneous translations, potentially jeopardizing the fairness of legal proceedings. This raised a critical question about the responsibilities and expected competence of court interpreters, and the consequences of failing to meet those standards. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that all court personnel, including interpreters, perform their duties with the highest level of accuracy and competence.

The complaint detailed instances where Lumilang’s translations were so flawed that lawyers had to step in to correct them, emphasizing the potential for injustice arising from inaccurate interpretations. The OCA’s investigation involved gathering testimonies from lawyers and court personnel who attested to Lumilang’s repeated errors and poor command of English. Despite these issues being brought to her attention, including an unsatisfactory performance rating, Lumilang failed to demonstrate improvement. The Supreme Court referenced Judge Domingo-Regala v. Sultan, stressing the high standards of conduct expected from judiciary employees:

No other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than the judiciary. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Public officers must be accountable to the people at all times and serve them with the utmost degree of responsibility and efficiency. Any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. It is the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.

The Court emphasized that even unintentional errors could have severe consequences, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or acquittals. Given the evidence presented, the Court found Lumilang liable for inefficiency and incompetence, noting her failure to refute the accusations of carelessness and inaccurate translations effectively. Lumilang’s defense, claiming she merely translated what she heard and performed her duties with humility, did not outweigh the documented evidence of her poor performance. The Supreme Court affirmed that all public officers and employees must serve with responsibility, integrity, and efficiency, reinforcing the principle that public office is a public trust.

The Court considered the appropriate penalty under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), which classifies inefficiency and incompetence as grave offenses. Section 46(B) of the RRACCS stipulates that such offenses are punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal for subsequent offenses. However, the Court also acknowledged its discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.

The Court decided to impose a suspension of three months without pay, considering that this was Lumilang’s first offense. While the Court is committed to disciplining errant employees, it also retains the discretion to temper justice with mercy. This decision reflects a balance between upholding accountability and recognizing individual circumstances. The Court’s ruling serves as a clear warning that similar offenses in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Regarding the allegation of Lumilang’s arrogant response to a lawyer’s request for a transcript, the Court found insufficient evidence to support administrative liability. The lack of substantiating evidence made it impossible to ascertain the truth of the matter, and therefore, no action was taken on that particular charge.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a court interpreter’s poor translation skills constituted inefficiency and incompetence, warranting disciplinary action. The case examined the standard of competence required for court interpreters and the potential consequences of failing to meet that standard.
What did the anonymous complaint allege?	The complaint alleged that Emiliana A. Lumilang, a court interpreter, had a poor command of the English language, resulting in erroneous translations of Visayan testimonies. It also accused her of being arrogant in the workplace.
What was the Court’s ruling?	The Court found Lumilang guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of her official duties. She was suspended for three months without pay and given a stern warning about future conduct.
What standard does the Court hold for judiciary employees?	The Court holds judiciary employees to a high standard of moral righteousness, uprightness, responsibility, and efficiency. Their conduct must be beyond reproach to maintain public trust in the justice system.
What is the potential impact of inaccurate court interpretations?	Inaccurate court interpretations can have severe consequences, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or acquittals. It is essential that court interpreters accurately convey testimonies to ensure fair legal proceedings.
What mitigating circumstance did the Court consider?	The Court considered that this was Lumilang’s first offense, which influenced the decision to impose a suspension rather than a harsher penalty like dismissal. This shows the court’s discretion to temper justice with mercy.
What is the legal basis for the Court’s decision?	The Court based its decision on Section 46(B) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), which classifies inefficiency and incompetence as grave offenses. The court also referred to the principle that public office is a public trust.
Why was the allegation of arrogance not considered?	The allegation of arrogance was not considered due to a lack of substantiating evidence. The Court required concrete proof to support the claim before taking any disciplinary action.

This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring competence and accountability among its personnel. By holding court interpreters to a high standard of accuracy and competence, the Court aims to protect the integrity of legal proceedings and uphold public trust in the justice system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: COMPLAINT AGAINST EMILIANA A. LUMILANG, A.M. No. P-14-3259, November 28, 2019