Facts:

The case involves Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali, the Presiding Judge of Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in San Pablo City, as the complainant, and Sixto A. PeAaloza, a utility worker of the same RTC branch, as the respondent. The incident in question occurred on May 8, 1998, in the staff room of the court. On that day, Judge Balisi-Umali was engaged in her duties, specifically correcting drafts and signing orders, when a stenographer, Mrs. Leonila V. Buena, approached her regarding missing supplies that had been recorded as received by PeAaloza. The judge questioned PeAaloza about the supplies, which led to a heated exchange. PeAaloza raised his voice and displayed rudeness towards the judge, questioning her authority and making disrespectful remarks. The confrontation escalated, with both parties exchanging insults, and PeAaloza ultimately leaving the room only to return shortly after to further provoke the judge. Following this incident, Judge Balisi-Umali filed...

Facts:

1. Incident on May 8, 1998:

   • Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali, Presiding Judge of Branch 30, San Pablo City RTC, was in the staff room correcting drafts and signing orders.
   • Stenographer Leonila V. Buena reported that two bottles of cleanser and three bars of laundry soap were missing from the delivered supplies, despite being listed as received by respondent Sixto A. PeAaloza, a utility worker.
   • When questioned, PeAaloza responded in a loud and angry tone, arguing with the Judge and raising his voice disrespectfully.
   • The confrontation escalated, with PeAaloza menacingly approaching the Judge and using offensive language.

2. Previous Disciplinary Issues:

   • Complainant attached three memoranda addressed to PeAaloza regarding disciplinary matters:
     • Failure to attend the flag ceremony.
     • Habitual absence from work.
     • Non-observance of official working hours.

3. Investigation and Response:

   • The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed an investigation.
   • PeAaloza admitted his misdeed in a counter-affidavit but claimed he did not intend disrespect and apologized.
   • Complainant forgave PeAaloza but did not withdraw the charges and requested his transfer.

4. Recommendation by Judge Reyes:

   • Judge Reyes found PeAaloza guilty of gross discourtesy and recommended a three-month suspension with a warning for future offenses.

Issue:

1. Whether respondent Sixto A. PeAaloza is guilty of gross discourtesy, insubordination, and acts unbecoming of a civil servant.
2. Whether the recommended penalty of suspension is appropriate.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found respondent Sixto A. PeAaloza GUILTY of gross discourtesy in the course of official duties. He was fined P3,000.00, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.

Ratio:

• (Unlock)