A.M. No. P-07-2321 - Dalmacio-Joaquin vs. Dela Cruz

A report was made by Security Guard Sielam G. Wee that respondent Nicomedes C. dela Cruz, Process Server of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, allegedly arrived drunk in the judge’s office.
According to the report, respondent hurled invectives at co-workers—specifically Jonathan Nolasco, Josephine dela Rosa, Cresencia Reyes, and Harold Gumbao—and attempted to punch Nolasco before being restrained by the security guard.

In response to the incident, Judge Pelagia J. Dalmacio-Joaquin summoned the involved employees into her chambers to ascertain the facts and to calm apprehensions regarding respondent’s conduct.
At the meeting, the employees recounted their versions of the incident, expressed fear for their safety, and indicated an intention not to pursue formal administrative charges against the respondent.
Later that day, when respondent was summoned into the judge’s office, he denied the allegations initially, though he eventually admitted to taking an alcoholic drink after the logbook documenting the incident was produced.
Despite this partial admission, respondent denied being drunk, dismissed the recollections of the employees as false, and subsequently left the meeting abruptly—first ignoring the judge’s request to continue with the discussion and later hiding in a comfort room before departing for home without authorization.

The case file revealed that respondent was already the subject of previous complaints, notably a 2005 case (initially docketed as IPI No. 05-2299-P and later as A.M. No. 05-2299-P) wherein he was charged with challenging a co-worker to a fight, submitting false or misleading service returns, and failing to comply with show-cause orders.
On February 20, 2006, in connection with the 2005 matter, a resolution was issued admonishing and warning respondent about future repetition of similar or analogous offenses.
On May 23, 2007, the administrative matter regarding the November 2, 2006 incident was referred to Executive Judge Petrita B. Dime of the Regional Trial Court in Malolos City for investigation.
Following the raffle of the matter on November 21, 2007, 1st Vice-Executive Judge Herminia V. Pasamba was designated to conduct the investigation, prepare a report, and submit recommendations.
On March 5, 2008, Judge Pasamba submitted her Report, characterizing respondent as ill-tempered, lacking in restraint and discipline, and noting his deviation from the standard judicial decorum by using invectives and instilling fear among his co-employees. She further determined that he was indeed drunk when he later returned to the court.
The Report also highlighted that respondent had already been administratively charged three times, with one case still pending, and recommended a suspension penalty of two (2) months without pay.

On April 16, 2008, the Report of Judge Pasamba was referred by the Court to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for further evaluation and recommendation.
On October 21, 2008, Court Administrator Jose P. Perez submitted a Memorandum affirming the factual findings of the investigation but modifying the proposed sanction.
Perez recommended a suspension of one (1) year without pay on the ground that respondent’s acts constituted gross insubordination and misconduct, reflecting the severity of intentionally disregarding lawful orders and the established judicial decorum.

Whether respondent Nicomedes C. dela Cruz committed the acts of gross insubordination by flagrantly disregarding the lawful orders of his superior, Judge Pelagia J. Dalmacio-Joaquin.
Whether his conduct—specifically, his refusal to comply with the judge’s directive to return for a discussion and his abrupt departure from the meeting—amounted to gross disobedience and disrespect toward a court personnel in authority.
Whether his act of verbally abusing co-workers and appearing at work under the influence of alcohol constitutes simple misconduct under the norms of the judiciary, thereby negatively impacting the image and discipline of the court.
Whether the cumulative administrative record and prior reprimands justified the imposition of the maximum penalty for gross insubordination in the context of aggravating circumstances of simple misconduct.