SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-4052. November 15, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4825-P]
PRESIDING JUDGE MAUREEN F. CHUA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, PLACER-BACUAG, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, complainant,vs. MERCY D. CANOY, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, SAME COURT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-4052 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4825-P] (Presiding Judge Maureen F. Chua, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte vs. Mercy D. Canoy, Junior Process Server, same court). —This is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Hon. Maureen F. Chua (Judge Chua), Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, against Mercy D. Canoy (Canoy), Junior Process Server of the said court for Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee and Arrogance.
On March 26, 2018, Judge Chua saw on her table Canoy's application for leave. She then called the latter to ask whether she informed the clerk of court that she was ill from March 20 to 23, 2018. Canoy answered "no" because she was busy. Judge Chua was annoyed and insulted especially since it was not the first time that Canoy failed to inform the office of her absences. Judge Chua then retorted that being busy is not an excuse not to inform the office of her absences. To Judge Chua's surprise, Canoy retaliated by saying in an arrogant manner that, "Unsa man na ako leave, imo disapprove?" (What will happen to my leave, you will disapprove it). 2
Judge Chua thus reminded Canoy to observe the proper procedure in filing a leave of absence. Canoy, however, kept on making excuses that she was busy. Canoy apologized but in an arrogant manner and while pointing her fingers to her head and waving her hands. She even told Judge Chua, "Unsa man imo gusto moluhod pa ko sa imo atubagan?" (What do you want me to do, kneel in front of you). 3 Judge Chua thus told Canoy to resign if she was unhappy with her job, but the latter retorted, "Dili ko mo-resign!" (I will not resign!). 4 Judge Chua ordered Canoy to leave her chambers. Canoy acceded while uttering something.
Outside the chambers, Canoy kept saying "sip-sip" without naming any particular person in the office. Her utterances became louder when she passed by the chambers of Judge Chua who then asked Canoy to name the person she was referring to as "sip-sip." But Canoy arrogantly replied, "Di man kon ikaw kay di man icon ikaw ra an tawo diri sa office." (It is not you because you are not the only person here in the office). 5 Judge Chua then told Canoy that she is capable of making her own decisions as regards her staff. 6
Judge Chua recalled that in February 2018, Canoy sent her a text message about her absence. However, she never instructed her staff to directly text her regarding their applications for leave. While Judge Chua appreciated the gesture, her staff must still file an application for leave pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998 of the Civil Service Commission and the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court. 7
Judge Chua further described Canoy as a problematic employee who might be suffering from an emotional or mental disorder. Canoy's disruptive and erratic behavior affected other employees and the work in the office. She was also paranoid and accused her co-workers as thieves and manipulative. Canoy would always bring her bag with her and accused just anybody of stealing from her as shown in her social media posts. 8 As a result, Judge Chua issued Memorandum 9 No. 2017-001 regarding Canoy's unprofessionalism and unpalatable behavior in the workplace. The former presiding judge of the said court likewise issued several memoranda against Canoy because of her attitude. 10
Canoy was also known to be troublesome even in her dealings with other government agencies. In fact, she even had an altercation with the employees of the Philippine National Police. 11
Hence, Judge Chua filed the letter-complaint 12 seeking disciplinary actions against Canoy, and that she be required to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
Canoy, on the other hand, averred that it was the first time that she failed to inform the office of all her incurred absences due to severe illness. Judge Chua could have asked her nicely instead of getting mad at her, which she claimed was unjustifiable for she did not commit a grave infraction. Canoy further argued that she could bring her bag with her anywhere she went as she had lost important papers. Lastly, the complaint was nothing but a demolition job to remove her from working in the judiciary. 13
In its report, 14 the Office of the Court of Administrator (OCA) recommended that the instant case be re-docketed as a regular administrative case. The OCA further recommended that Canoy be found guilty of Simple Misconduct and must be fined in the amount equivalent of one-month salary payable within 30 days from receipt of notice. Canoy should also be sternly warned that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Our Ruling
We stress that Court employees are expected to possess high standards of morality and ethics. 15 They must maintain professionalism and proper decorum in their dealings not only with the public but also with their co-workers and their superiors, for the attitude and actuations of court employees mirror the image of the Judiciary. We must uphold the respect and the trust of the public. 16
In Judge Yrastorza, Jr. v. Latiza, 17 the Court held:
Court employees bear the burden of observing exacting standards of ethics and morality. This is the price one pays for the honor or working in the judiciary. Those who are part of the machinery dispensing justice, from the lowliest clerk to the presiding judge, must conduct themselves with utmost decorum and propriety to maintain the public's faith and respect for the judiciary. Improper behavior, particularly during office hours, exhibits not only a paucity of professionalism at the workplace but also a great disrespect to the court itself. Such demeanor is a failure of circumspection demanded of every public official and employee. It is of no moment whether respondent was on leave when he went to the Palace of Justice. For his improper behavior, respondent is guilty of simple misconduct. 18 (Citation omitted)
Upon a thorough examination of the case, the Court finds Canoy guilty of Gross Insubordination and Simple Misconduct.
Insubordination is the "refusal to obey some order, which a superior officer is entitled to give and have obeyed." 19 It connotes a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer. 20
It is beyond cavil that Canoy acted in gross insubordination. Judge Chua was within her authority in calling Canoy's attention for failure to file her incurred absences and to remind her of the proper procedure of filing thereof. However, Canoy was utterly arrogant and disrespectful of her immediate superior. Speaking in a very condescending manner, she gave a lame excuse of being busy hence her failure to file an application for leave of absence. Instead of being apologetic and remorseful, she even answered back in an insolent tone when Judge Chua reminded her of the need to file a leave of absence. Worse, Canoy even boldly retorted and asked Judge Chua if she would like her to kneel and beg for her forgiveness. Clearly, Canoy's actuations not only constitute Gross Insubordination, but were also utterly disrespectful to the judicial authority and the position of Judge Chua. 21
In Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Dela Cruz, 22 respondent therein, who was also a Process Server, disrespected the judge, his superior, walked out of the chambers and left the office without permission. These acts, as found by the Court, were tantamount to Insubordination, Gross Disobedience and Disrespect to the judicial authority and the position of the complainant judge. 23
The Court likewise finds Canoy liable for Simple Misconduct, which is defined as "an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers." 24
Canoy's act of walking around inside the office while uttering the words "sip-sip," although not referring to a particular individual, is highly inappropriate for a court employee. This happened during office hours inside the court, a sacred place for litigants who seek justice. 25 We stress that unruly and scandalous behavior has no place in the court. All court employees are bound to observe prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity in all their actions and words. 26 Undoubtedly, Canoy's misbehavior diminishes the sanctity and dignity of the court. Her non-observance of proper decorum tarnishes the integrity of the Judiciary. It undermines the trust and confidence of the public to the institution which Canoy should have safeguarded.
The Court now determines the appropriate penalty.
In the recent case of Dela Rama v. De Leon27(Dela Rama), the Court made it clear that the Court has administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel pursuant to A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC and its supplemental Resolution dated October 2, 2018. Moreover, Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, states that disciplinary proceedings against the officials and employees of the Judiciary, among others, may be instituted, motu proprio, by the Court, in the Judiciary Integrity Board.
The Court further held in Dela Rama that Rule 140 of the Rules of Court must be applied as to charges and imposition of penalties in administrative cases involving personnel of the Judiciary, unless its retroactive application is unfavorable or prejudicial to the erring court employee. 28
In the instant case, the Court deems it proper to apply Rule 140, being not prejudicial to Canoy.
Section 46 (b) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) classified Gross Insubordination as a grave offense, the penalty of which is suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal from service for the second offense. 29 Such grave offense is tantamount to a gross misconduct under Section 22 of Rule 140, as amended, to wit:
SEC. 22. Serious Charges. — Serious charges include:
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and grave offenses under the Civil Service Laws and Rule[.]
Section 25, as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC, 30 states that a judicial official or employee found guilty of a serious charge may be penalized of any of the following sanctions:
Section 25. Sanctions. —
A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) months but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than 100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00. (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, Simple Misconduct is considered as a less serious charge under Rule 140, as amended, for which any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
Section 25. Sanctions. —
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of not less than P35,000.00 but not exceeding P100,000.00. 31
Notably, however, Section 50 of RRACCS states that in case the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, "the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances." Guided by the foregoing, the offense of Simple Misconduct is considered as an aggravating circumstance. Thus, the penalty of suspension in its maximum period of six months without salary and other benefits should be imposed against Canoy.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Mercy D. Canoy, Junior Process Server of the MCTC, Placer-Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and Simple Misconduct. She is meted the penalty of six months SUSPENSION without salary and other benefits, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of similar or analogous infractions in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."(S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 29.
10.Id. at 4.
11.Id. at 4-5.
12.Id. at 3-5.
13.Id. at 19.
14.Id. at 20-23.
15.Benong-Linde v. Lomantas, 833 Phil. 43, 50 (2018), citing Yrastorza, Jr. v. Latiza, 462 Phil. 145, 153 (2003).
16.Oñate v. Imatong, 676 Phil. 184, 189 (2011).
17. 462 Phil. 145 (2003).
18.Id. at 153-154.
19.Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Dela Cruz, 604 Phil. 256, 261 (2009).
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Oñate v. Imatong, supra note 16 at 191, citing Judge Tabora v. Carbonell, 635 Phil. 188, 201 (2010).
25. See De Vera, Jr. v. Rimando, 551 Phil. 471, 478 (2007).
26.Paulino v. Rimando, A.M. No. P-17-3631, July 10, 2019, citing Escaño v. Manaois, 799 Phil. 622, 637-638 (2016).
27. A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021.
28.Id.
29. Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 10, Section 46 (b).
30. Amendments to the Fines Provided in Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court.
31.Id.