Facts:

The case involves Ria Pamela B. Abulencia and Blessie M. Burgonio, who are complainants against Regino R. Hermosisima, a Security Guard II at the Sheriff and Security Division of the Sandiganbayan. The events leading to the administrative complaint occurred on April 25, 2012, when Hermosisima inquired about the status of the computation of loyalty differentials for Sandiganbayan employees. The complainants informed him that they were still finalizing the computation based on new directives from the Finance Division. In response to their explanation, Hermosisima expressed frustration, asking, "Bakit nyo pinapatagal?" to which Burgonio retorted, "Matalino ka naman, ikaw na gumawa nyan!" This exchange escalated, leading Hermosisima to angrily shout vulgarities at the complainants, including "Mga putang-ina nyo, ang bobobo nyo! Ang ta-tanga nyo, ayusin nyo yang trabaho nyo!" Following this incident, Abulencia and Burgonio filed an administrative comp...

Facts:

Background of the Case

The administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Ria Pamela B. Abulencia and Blessie M. Burgonio, employees of the Sandiganbayan, against Regino R. Hermosisima, a Security Guard II in the same court. The complainants accused Hermosisima of grave misconduct.

Incident on April 25, 2012

On April 25, 2012, Hermosisima inquired about the status of the computation of loyalty differentials for Sandiganbayan employees. The complainants informed him that the computation was still being finalized based on new directives from the Finance Division. Hermosisima responded with frustration, asking, "Bakit nyo pinapatagal?" (Why are you delaying it?). Burgonio retorted, "Matalino ka naman, ikaw na gumawa nyan!" (You're smart, you do it yourself!). This exchange escalated, with Hermosisima shouting vulgar and offensive remarks at the complainants, including, "Mga putang-ina nyo, ang bobobo nyo! Ang ta-tanga nyo, ayusin nyo yang trabaho nyo!" (You sons of bitches, you're so stupid! You're so dumb, fix your work!).

Respondent's Defense

In his Counter Affidavit, Hermosisima admitted to his rude behavior but explained that it was an emotional outburst due to the delayed release of his loyalty benefits, which he needed to support his five children. He apologized to the complainants and pleaded for mercy.

Preliminary Investigation

Atty. Mary Ruth M. Ferrer conducted a preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case against Hermosisima for grave misconduct or, at the very least, simple misconduct. The case was assigned to Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., who conducted a formal investigation.

Findings of Associate Justice Herrera, Jr.

Associate Justice Herrera, Jr. found Hermosisima guilty of simple misconduct and recommended a penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension, with a warning against future misconduct.

OCA's Recommendation

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative case. The OCA also recommended a one (1) month and one (1) day suspension without pay for Hermosisima, along with a stern warning.

Issue:

1. Whether Hermosisima's actions constituted grave misconduct or simple misconduct.
2. Whether the penalty recommended by the OCA was appropriate.

Ruling:

The Court agreed with the OCA's findings and recommendations. Hermosisima was found guilty of simple misconduct and was suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. He was also sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would result in more severe penalties.

Ratio:

1. Definition of Misconduct: Misconduct is an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. Grave misconduct involves corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. Simple misconduct, on the other hand, involves unacceptable behavior that transgresses established rules of conduct for public officers, whether work-related or not.

2. Application to the Case: Hermosisima's use of vulgar and offensive language during office hours and within the court premises constituted simple misconduct. His behavior deviated from the established norms of conduct expected of public officers. While he claimed his outburst was due to frustration over delayed benefits, this was not a justifiable excuse. Court employees are expected to maintain professionalism, respect, and decorum at all times.

3. Penalty for Simple Misconduct: Under Rule 10, Section 46(D)(2) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty for simple misconduct is suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. The OCA's recommended penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension was within this range and deemed appropriate.

4. Importance of Professionalism: The Court emphasized that court employees must uphold high standards of propriety and decorum. Any misconduct, especially within the court premises, diminishes the sanctity and dignity of the judiciary. Employees must maintain professionalism and respect in their dealings with both the public and their co-workers.

Conclusion:

Hermosisima was found guilty of simple misconduct and suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. He was warned that any repetition of similar acts would result in more severe penalties.