FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-20-40-80. July 13, 2020.][Formerly A.M. No. 20-01-17-RTC]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner,vs. ANTHONY E. RIMAS, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 92, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 13, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-20-40-80 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Anthony E. Rimas, Utility Worker I, Regional Trial Court, Branch 92, Calamba City, Laguna [Formerly A.M. No. 20-01-17-RTC — Re: Report dated April 16, 2018 submitted by Hon. Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Calamba City, Laguna, on the investigation of an incident involving Hon. Gregorio M. Velasquez, Presiding Judge, Branch 35, RTC, same station, and Anthony E. Rimas, Utility Worker I, Branch 92, same station])
Before us is an administrative matter which originated from a Report (Administrative Matter for Agenda) submitted by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of this Court, recommending that respondent Utility Worker I, Anthony E. Rimas (Rimas) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 92, Calamba City, Laguna, be found guilty of Simple Misconduct, and be suspended for three months and one day without pay, for disrespecting Hon. Gregorio M. Velasquez (Judge Velasquez), Presiding Judge, Branch 35, RTC, same station, and for being in court premises intoxicated.
Factual Antecedents
Based on Judge Velasquez' written narrative dated September 14, 2017, he averred that in the evening of August 17, 2017, as he stepped-out of the staff room of Branch 35, he saw Rimas several steps ahead of him walking towards the guard's table located in front of the Hall of Justice. When he was already about a couple of steps away from the guard's table, Rimas suddenly banged the table while angrily uttering statements which he failed to hear completely. Feeling alluded to, Judge Velasquez stopped for a while to see what else Rimas would do. When Rimas did not do anything else, Judge Velasquez proceeded towards his car with Security Guard Raul Dinaya (SG Dinaya) beside him. It was then that Judge Velasquez asked SG Dinaya what was Rimas' problem. SG Dinaya replied that Rimas and his wife, Mrs. Elnora Rimas (Elnora), Legal Researcher of Branch 35, quarreled. 1
As Judge Velasquez was maneuvering his car out of his parking slot, he saw Rimas already seated at the driver's seat of his tricycle, with Elnora seated at the passenger sidecar, and shouting at Atty. Joan A. Robles-Jesena (Atty. Robles-Jesena), Branch Clerk of Court (BCC) of Branch 35, who was then also on her way out of the Hall of Justice. When Judge Velasquez drove near Rimas' tricycle in order to check what he was shouting to Atty. Robles-Jesena, Rimas drove away his tricycle. 2
Judge Velasquez asked SG Dinaya to make a report about the incident because Rimas clearly committed certain infractions by entering the Hall of Justice under the influence of alcohol, and by Rimas' disrespectful behavior towards Judge Velasquez and Atty. Robles-Jesena. 3
The following day, Judge Velasquez inquired from Atty. Robles-Jesena about the matters Rimas shouted at her. Atty. Robles-Jesena said she clearly heard Rimas say "Yung Judge niyo" at least twice. Judge Velasquez stated that such statements uttered in a loud and angry manner clearly indicate disrespect, if not outright threat, to him. He also maintained that he never required Elnora to render overtime work. 4
In her Affidavit dated October 2, 2017, Atty. Robles-Jesena asserted that when she left the office and reached the steps in front of the building, she saw that Judge Velasquez was already inside his vehicle while SG Dinaya was on the other side of the street ready to guide traffic. At the same time, she was able to catch up with Elnora and her husband, Rimas, who were then about to go home. Elnora even apologized to her for leaving earlier than her usual routine. Atty. Robles-Jesena also noticed that Rimas was drunk and in a foul mood. 5
Atty. Robles-Jesena further asserted that when Mr. and Mrs. Rimas boarded their tricycle, she said goodbye to them. However, Rimas shouted at her, "Yang Huwes ninyo, yang huwes ninyo!" He kept repeating those words and uttered something unintelligible. Elnora prodded her husband that they go home already. Rimas revved the engine of their motorcycle and sped away. When they were gone, Judge Velasquez parked in front of the building and rolled down the passenger's side window. Judge Velasquez asked Atty. Robles-Jesena and SG Dinaya if he was the one being alluded to by Rimas. To which SG Dinaya replied that Mr. and Mrs. Rimas were having a quarrel. 6
The next day, Atty. Robles-Jesena admitted to Judge Velasquez that she heard Rimas repeatedly shouted "Yang huwes ninyo, yang huwes ninyo." and that Rimas was clearly referring to Judge Velasquez. 7
In his Comment dated February 20, 2018, Rimas admitted that he was slightly drunk, not in control of his faculties when he returned to the Hall of Justice in the early evening of August 17, 2017, to fetch his wife Elnora. He said he got irked when Elnora refused to go home yet and decided to work overtime. Rimas found such setup unbearable since Elnora's desire to work not only on overtime but also even during weekends deprives their family of her precious time as well as it causes her to be sick. He admitted the content[s] of the report submitted by SG Dinaya and stated that while he is fully aware of the responsibilities of an office worker, he asserted that a balance must be maintained between office work and the well-being of a family. He expressed his remorse over the matter and asked that he be pardoned for his actions. 8
In his Salaysay na Paglilinaw filed February 23, 2018, Rimas admitted the accounts of Judge Velasquez and Atty. Robles-Jesena as reflected in their respective statements, but contended that he did not intend to disrespect them both. He explained that while he had already done his part regarding the preparation of their dinner for that evening, Elnora had yet no intention of going home early. Thus, he harbored the woeful notion that Elnora values her work more than her family. As such, out of sadness and jealousy, he consumed four bottles of beer before returning to the Hall of Justice to fetch his wife. He asserted that when he uttered the words "Yang huwes ninyo, yang huwes ninyo," the same was just a way for him to vent out his frustration but the words were intended for Elnora only, and without any bad intention. He apologized anew to those whom he had offended, especially to Judge Velasquez. 9
In her Report dated April 16, 2018, Executive Judge Hon. Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo (EJ Formes-Baculo) gave her evaluation and recommendation on the matter, viz.:
EVALUATION: A circumspect scrutiny of the records at hand shows that Rimas indeed showed disrespect to Judge Velasquez coupled with the fact that he went back to the HOJ under the influence of alcohol.
Rimas has admitted that he uttered the words repeatedly: "Yung Judge nyo," which obviously referred to Judge Velasquez as he said the words in a loud and angry manner at the BCC of Judge Velasquez. Thus, Atty. Robles-Jesena aptly mentioned to Judge Velasquez the fact of Rimas shouting the words at her but such referred to Judge Velasquez, as aptly shown in her Affidavit executed October 2, 2017.
There is also no gainsaying, likewise admitted by Rimas, that he had imbibed alcohol when he went back to the HOJ to fetch his wife Elnora. Rimas admitted taking four bottles of beer before going to the HOJ. Moreover, Rimas admitted what SG Dinaya reported that he was drunk and reeking of alcohol when he arrived in the HOJ at around 6:30 pm on August 17, 2017.
However, it should be noted that the act of Rimas slamming his keys on the security guard's table or "pagdadabog" was not directed at Judge Velasquez since Rimas was obviously peeved that his wife Elnora chose to continue working overtime despite being fetched, as aptly reflected in the written report of SG Dinaya.
Moreover, the assertion and complaint of Rimas against his wife Elnora, which obviously was the cause of their quarrel, is that his wife Elnora was to his view doing too much overtime work to the detriment of their family life. This assertion has not been denied. While Judge Velasquez mentioned that Elnora was not required to do overtime work, he did not mention that Elnora was not doing a lot of overtime work. Notably, Rimas in his written explanation dated September 4, 2017 which reiterated verbatim except the date of February 20, 2018, that his wife Elnora does overtime work on Saturdays and Sundays on top of the weekday overtime work. And that Atty. Robles-Jesena mentioned in her Affidavit of October 2, 2018 would tend to show such fact as she mentioned that when she caught the Rimas couple about to leave the HOJ on August 17, 2017, Elnora apologized to her for leaving way before her customary time to leave the office.
His handwritten Salaysay na Paglilinaw does put into perspective the turmoil Rimas was undergoing due to the excessive rendition of overtime work his wife Elnora was doing which took away time from the family and the care of their only child and love and affection of Elnora. While such does not exonerate Rimas from the infractions he committed, such certainly serves as mitigating circumstances in his favor.
RECOMMENDATION: Considering the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that Anthony Rimas be REPRIMANDED for going to the HOJ under the influence of alcohol and that he be STERNLY REMINDED to be more circumspect in his words and actuations. A similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely. 10
The OCA evaluated the report of EJ Formes-Baculo and noted that the facts and circumstances surrounding the improper behavior exhibited by Rimas were clearly established by the concerned parties themselves, including Rimas himself, as expressed in their respective written statements. The only discrepancy that comes into mind is Rimas' excuse that his utterance of the words "Yang huwes ninyo, yang huwes ninyo!" is an articulation of his feelings intended only for his wife Elnora and not to Judge Velasquez. The OCA provided that this claim is obviously skewed, illogical and self-serving. What is evidently accurate and realistic is the fact that Rimas exhibited gross discourtesy not only to one but two of his superior officers, that is Judge Velasquez and BCC Atty. Robles-Jesena, aside from the fact that his boorish behavior was committed within the court premises. 11
The OCA further noted that it was bad judgment on the part of Rimas to return to court intoxicated to fetch and bring his wife Elnora home. 12
The OCA also stressed that Rimas has already been administratively sanctioned by the Court. In De Vera v. Rimas, 13 he was found guilty of falsification of official document and dishonesty, and was suspended for six months and one day without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 14
The OCA recommended that Rimas be found guilty of simple misconduct. The OCA provided that while his first infraction of dishonesty in A.M. No. P-06-2118 cannot be strictly classified as similar to his offense in the instant matter, it should however preclude the imposition of the appropriate penalty in its minimum. Ultimately, the OCA recommended that Rimas be suspended for three months and one day without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. 15
The Court's Ruling
We agree with the findings of the OCA that Rimas is guilty of Simple Misconduct.
Simple Misconduct is defined as an unacceptable behavior which transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers, work-related or not. 16
In Judge Marbas-Vizcarra v. Soriano, 17 the Court ruled:
In a number of cases, it was held that the conduct and behavior of every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. Part of this stringent requirement is that agents of the law should refrain from the use of language that is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing or otherwise improper. Judicial employees are expected to accord every due respect, not only to their superiors, but also to others and their rights at all times. Their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. 18 (Citations omitted)
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 premises diminishes its sanctity and dignity. 19
In the instant case, it is clear that Rimas disrespected two of his superior officers, Judge Velasquez and Atty. Robles-Jesena, within the court premises. The fact that the said acts were committed outside of office hours does not mitigate the responsibility and duty of Rimas, as a court employee, to observe proper decorum and proper behavior, especially to his superiors.
As properly concluded by the OCA:
It bears stressing that the words ''Yang huwes ninyo, yang huwes ninyo!" is a loaded statement undoubtedly referring to Judge Velasquez, the "huwes" who just passed by near him and who, to his belief, was the main reason why his wife Elnora was rendering extra work and spending extra time in the office. Moreover, the remark, while intended for Judge Velasquez, was blurted out to Clerk of Court Atty. Robles-Jesena, the clueless superior who bore the brunt of respondent Utility Worker Rimas' simmering emotion when he expressed his anger by repeatedly hollering the resentment-laced remark specifically to her (the word "ninyo" obviously referring to her in "Yang huwes ninyo, yang huwes ninyo!"). 20
Further it is certainly improper on the part of Rimas to return to court intoxicated, even if the same is beyond office hours.
In Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Dela Cruz, 21 the Court ruled:
Respondent committed misconduct when he verbally abused his co-employees and appeared at his place of work drunk. Drinking during office hours may constitute misconduct and is prohibited under the Civil Service Rules. Drinking undermines efficiency and is counter-productive. It generates an unwholesome consequence on a public servant. And when the culprit is an employee of the court, the image of the judiciary as a whole cannot but be affected. (Citation omitted)
While not on all fours in the case at bar, we find that the acts of Rimas also constitute misconduct.
Shouting and cursing, particularly at the workplace, is not only an exhibition of paucity of professionalism, but is also an act of disrespect towards co-employees and this Court. 22
Rimas' acts clearly constitute unacceptable conduct for a judicial employee. They cannot be countenanced. The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the demeanor, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work there. Thus, the unbecoming behavior of Rimas placed not only [Judge Velasquez and BCC Atty. Robles-Jesena] in a bad light, but likewise the court which both represent. 23
High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. Such conduct is exacted from them so that they will earn and keep the public's respect for and confidence in the judicial service. This standard is applied with respect to a court employee's dealings not only with the public but also with his or her co-workers in the service. Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely erodes respect for the courts. 24
As correctly pointed out by the OCA, Rimas has already been administratively sanctioned by the Court for falsification of official document and dishonesty, and was suspended for six months and one day without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 25
Under Section 50 (D) (2), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (RACCS), simple misconduct is considered a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense; and dismissal from service for the second offense.
The recommendation of the OCA to impose the penalty of suspension of three months and one day is well taken, however, the Court finds it proper to adjust the penalty on account of the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in accordance with Sections 53 and 54, Rule 10 of the 2017 RACCS.
The Court notes that the following may be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the determination of the penalty to be imposed in this case: (1) Rimas entered the court premises under the influence of alcohol; (2) Rimas showed great disrespect not only to one (1) but two (2) of his superior officers, i.e., Judge Velasquez and BCC Atty. Robles-Jesena; and (3) Rimas is a repeat offender having been previously found guilty of falsification of official document and dishonesty. On the other hand, the Court considers Rimas' remorse and admission as a mitigating circumstance in his favor. In addition, we take note of the following observation by EJ Formes-Baculo in considering the penalty to be imposed upon Rimas:
His handwritten Salaysay na Paglilinaw does put into perspective the turmoil Rimas was undergoing due to the excessive rendition of overtime work his wife Elnora was doing which took away time from the family and the care of their only child and the love and affection of Elnora. While such does not exonerate Rimas from the infractions he committed, such certainly serves as mitigating circumstance in his favor.
Section 54, Rule 10 of the 2017 RACCS, provides that where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed when there are more aggravating circumstances. Notably, there are more aggravating circumstances than mitigating circumstances in the instant case. Hence, the proper penalty to be imposed is the maximum, i.e., suspension of six months. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the penalty of suspension of four months would suffice.
WHEREFORE, Anthony E. Rimas, Utility Worker I of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 92, Calamba City, Laguna, is hereby SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY for a period of four (4) months. He is further WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely by the Court.
The Report dated November 21, 2019 of the Office of the Court Administrator is NOTED.
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, p. 12.
2.Id.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 22.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 2-3.
9.Id. at 3.
10.Id. at 29-30.
11.Id. at 4-5.
12.Id. at 5.
13. 577 Phil. 136 (2008).
14.Rollo, p. 6.
15.Id.
16.Abulencia v. Hermosisima, 712 Phil. 248, 252 (2013).
17.Judge Marbas-Vizcarra v. Soriano, 448 Phil. 19 (2013).
18.Id. at 27.
19.De Vera, Jr. v. Rimando, 551 Phil. 471, 478 (2007).
20.Rollo, p. 5.
21. 604 Phil. 256, 262 (2009).
22.In re: Incident Report of the Security Division, Supreme Court, Cesar, 437 Phil. 539, 545 (2002).
23.Caguioa v. Flora, 412 Phil. 426-434 (2001).
24.Fernandez v. Rubillos, 569 SCRA 283, 292 (2008).
25.De Vera v. Rimas, supra note 13, at 141.