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:

Origins of the Case

• The administrative case arose from a Joint Complaint-Affidavit filed by complainants Ria Pamela B. Abulencia and Blessie M. Burgonio, who are respectively Clerk III and HRM Assistant of the Administrative Division of the Sandiganbayan.
• The complaint charged respondent Regino R. Hermosisima, a Security Guard II of the Sheriff and Security Division of the Sandiganbayan, with grave misconduct.

Incident Leading to the Complaint

• On April 25, 2012, respondent inquired about the status of the computation of the loyalty differential of the Sandiganbayan employees.
• Complainants informed him that the computation was still being finalized in accordance with new directives issued by the Finance Division.
• In response, respondent remarked in a confrontational manner, “Bakit nyo pinapatagal?” to which complainant Burgonio retorted, “aMatalino ka naman, ikaw na gumawa nyan!”
• The altercation escalated when respondent, taken aback, raised his voice and uttered vulgar and insulting remarks toward the complainants, including statements like “a Mga putang-ina nyo, ang bobobo nyo! Ang ta-tanga nyo, ayusin nyo yang trabaho nyo!”

Subsequent Developments and Investigations

• Following the incident, the complainants filed an administrative complaint against respondent for grave misconduct.
• In his Counter Affidavit, respondent admitted to his rude behavior, explaining it as an outburst provoked by frustration over the delayed release of his loyalty benefits, which he needed for the support of his five children.
• He expressed remorse by apologizing to the complainants and plead for mercy and understanding.
• A preliminary investigation was conducted by Atty. Mary Ruth M. Ferrer, Director III of the Legal Research and Technical Staff Division, who found a prima facie case of grave misconduct under Section 46(A)(3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service—or, if not grave, at least simple misconduct under Section 46(D)(2), Rule 10.

Formal Investigation and Resolution

• The case was assigned to Associate Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. for a formal investigation where both parties were afforded the opportunity to present evidence.
• In a Resolution dated October 22, 2012, Associate Justice Herrera, Jr. determined that respondent was guilty of simple misconduct only.
• He recommended the penalty of suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day along with a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar acts would attract a more severe discipline.

Evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

• On April 10, 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its report recommending that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative case.
• The OCA further recommended that respondent be suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, reiterating that any further misconduct would result in harsher penalties.

Issue:

Whether the respondent’s utterances constituted grave misconduct as charged by the complainants.

• The central point was to determine if the use of vulgar language and insulting invectives during office hours and within the precincts of the court warranted a finding of grave misconduct.
• The inquiry extended to whether respondent’s explanation—that his outburst was due to frustration over delayed loyalty benefits—could be accepted as a mitigating or justifying factor.

Whether the recommended penalty for simple misconduct—the suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day—was within the bounds prescribed by the revised rules on administrative cases in the civil service.

• This issue involved examining if the penalty was proper and commensurate given the nature of the misconduct.
• It also questioned if the step-down from grave to simple misconduct was adequately supported by the evidence and the rule’s definitions.

Whether the respondent’s conduct failed to meet the standards of behavior expected of court employees, thereby justifying administrative liability.

• The issue centered on the expected decorum, propriety, and professionalism within the court premises.
• It involved scrutinizing if the conduct, although not directly work-related, still adversely impacted the integrity and dignity of the judiciary.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)