FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-21-011. March 18, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4982-P]
ALEX JUNREY B. CANONIGO, ET AL., complainants,vs. MERCY D. CANOY, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC], PLACER-BACUAG, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-21-011 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4982-P] (Alex Junrey B. Canonigo, et al., Complainants, v. Mercy D. Canoy, Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court [MCTC], Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, Respondent). — This is a joint administrative complaint 1 for discourtesy and conduct unbecoming of an employee of the court filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Mercy D. Canoy (respondent), Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, by her fellow court employees Alex Junrey B. Canonigo (Canonigo), Rea Liza S. Logronio, Diane C. Luciano, Niezel D. Cutamora, Cromwell J. Tiujongco, and Cheryl L. Casaña (collectively, complainants).
Antecedents
The very thrust of the complaint is the alleged misbehavior exhibited by respondent towards her fellow court employees. The complaint portrayed her as hostile, disrespectful, rumor-mongering and a chronic complainer. This was highlighted by the incident that took place on 02 May 2019 involving respondent and complainant Canonigo, the Acting OIC Clerk of Court. Allegedly, respondent informed Canonigo that her computer is broken and asked permission if she could use his or the other computers. Canonigo answered in the negative which prompted respondent to blurt aloud: "Wala man diay kay pulos nga pag ka OIC dili man ka kasulbad sa problema sa opisina!" (You are a useless OIC because you cannot resolve problems here in the office!). 2
A similar incident happened days after where the other complainants refused to lend their computers because they fear that respondent might delete important files. Complainants are also bothered by respondent's persistent and daily nagging. Oftentimes, respondent would complain out loud about someone spreading rumors about her personal life that is causing her co-workers to isolate her. 3 She even accused on social media an unnamed LGU employee tearing off the logo of her "original" Lacoste handbag. And when complainants confronted her, they ended up arguing and yelling at each other. 4 Complainants now worry on the possible outcome of respondent's continuous and notorious undesirability. 5
In her Comment, 6 respondent denied being discourteous towards Canonigo or her other co-workers but admitted she may have expressed her disappointment on Canonigo's cold treatment and failure to come up with a solution. 7 She also admitted having posted on social media her dismay on seeing the logo of her handbag torn off. She claimed that it was a gift from her husband and it pains her to see something with such sentimental value mutilated.
Recommendation of the OCA
In its 08 September 2020 Report, 8 the OCA opined that the unsavory remarks and accusations of the respondent are discourteous and disrespectful. Thus, the OCA made the following recommendations:
(1) the instant administrative complaint against Mercy D. Canoy, Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
(2) respondent Canoy be REPRIMANDED for Simple Discourtesy, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court; and
(3) the entire staff of the MCTC, Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, be STRONGLY REMINDED to be more circumspect in their dealings with each other in the workplace. 9
Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA. The complaints hurled against the respondent are petty and should not have reached the Court had the parties settled the issue themselves, taking into account the need to preserve the image of the judiciary.
At any rate, We understand respondent's frustration. As the court's junior process server, she also needed assistance in preparing court processes and her co-workers' refusal to lend their computers puts her productivity behind. However, respondent should have exercised restraint in spewing scathing remarks; especially towards Canonigo, who is her superior. For his part, Canonigo should have recognized respondent's problem since this meant delay in their court's legal processes if ignored. But again, the issue on the use or availability of computers could have been resolved in a more civil manner.
On the contrary, respondent should not be brash in accusing employees of the court, even post her unfounded accusations on social media. Also, respondent should refrain from voicing her complaints in the workplace as this spears negativity and affects the productivity of the team. No less than self-restraint and civility are at all times expected from court employees. Their conduct, particularly when they are within court premises, must always be characterized by propriety and decorum. They should avoid any act or behavior that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Court employees are supposed to be well-mannered, civil, and considerate in their actuations, both in their relations with co-workers and the transacting public. Boorishness, foul language and any misbehavior in court premised diminishes its sanctity and dignity. 10
Further, fighting between court employees during office hours is a disgraceful behavior reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. It displays a cavalier attitude towards the seriousness and dignity with which court business should be treated. Shouting at one another in the workplace and during office hours is arrant discourtesy and disrespect not only towards co-workers, but to the court as well. 11
Verily, respondent failed to act in accordance with the high standards expected from court employees. She should have observed courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in conversing not only with Canonigo, who is her superior, but also with the other employees of the court. Such high-strung demeanor characterizes discourtesy and disrespect not just towards her co-workers, but also with the court.
In the case of Lam v. Garcia12 involving a junior process server who hurled abusive words towards the clerk of court, the Court ruled that such conduct amounted to simple discourtesy in the course of official duties. Under Rule 10, Section 50 (F) (1) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple discourtesy is punishable with reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one (1) day to thirty (30) days for the second offense, and dismissal from service for the third offense. The Court agrees with the OCA that given the circumstances of the case, the penalty of reprimand is proper. 13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Mercy D. Canoy, Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte is hereby REPRIMANDED for simple discourtesy, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
The entire staff of the MCTC, Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, are also STRONGLY REMINDED to be more circumspect in their dealings with each other in the workplace.
The affidavit-complaint (with enclosures) of Alex Junrey B. Canonigo, Rea Liza S. Logronio, Diane C. Luciano, Niezel D. Cutamora, Cromwell J. Tiujongco, and Cheryl L. Casaña charging Junior Process Server Mercy D. Canoy with discourtesy and conduct unbecoming a court employee; (b) the comment on the complaint (with enclosure) of Junior Process Server Mercy D. Canoy; and (c) the Report dated September 8, 2020 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED; and the instant administrative complaint is RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Junior Process Server Mercy D. Canoy.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 4.
4.Id. at 5.
5.Id. at 6.
6.Id. at 40-41.
7.Id. at 40.
8.Id.; unpaginated Administrative Matter for Agenda with Subject Matter: OCA IPI No. 19-4982-P(Alex Junrey B. Canonigo, et al. vs. Mercy D. Canoy, Junior Process Serve, Municipal Circuit Trial Court [MCTC], Placer-Bacuag, Surigao de! Norte).
9.Id.
10.Lam v. Garcia, 780 Phil. 473-478 (2016); A.M. No. P-15-3300, 10 February 2016 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro].
11.Bajar v. Baterisna, 531 Phil. 229-238 (2016); A.M. No. P-06-2151, 28 August 2006 [Per C.J. Panganiban].
12.Supra at note 10.
13.Supra at note 8.