A.M. No. P-13-3108 - Lozada vs. Zerrudo

Complainants L.G. Johnna E. Lozada and L.G. Liza S. Millado, employed as security guards of Eagle Matrix Security Agency, Inc., were assigned to guard the premises of the CJ Ramon Avance Hall of Justice.
Their duty, as directed by Executive Judge Antonio M. Natino, was to collect every Monday morning, precisely at 8:00 a.m., the record sheets containing the time of arrival of court employees, and to submit these sheets to the Office of the Clerk of Court at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (OCC-MTCC) of Iloilo City, Iloilo.

At approximately 8:10 a.m. on July 19, 2010, after the complainants collected the record sheets:

A lady claiming to be employed by the OCC-MTCC took the record sheets under the pretext that she would submit them later as the OCC-MTCC was still closed.
Shortly afterward, the record sheets were observed being distributed among employees, who were seen signing them for recording their late arrival.

Respondent Salvacion D. Sermonia angrily approached the complainants and berated them in the vernacular, threatening to report them to Judge Natino for their actions.
Subsequently, respondent Ma. Theresa G. Zerrudo came out of her office, pointed her finger at one of the complainants (Lozada), and shouted intimidating remarks, further suggesting that she had a personal grudge and was monitoring the complainants’ actions.

The actions of both respondents, carried out in full view of other court personnel and visitors, were perceived by the complainants as intentional moves to embarrass them due to their lower status as security guards.

Administrative Proceedings Initiated by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

On September 1, 2010, the OCA sent separate endorsements to respondents Sermonia and Zerrudo, directing them to file their respective comments on the complaint within ten (10) days.
Respondents’ Requests for Extensions:

Zerrudo filed a letter on October 16, 2010, seeking an additional fifteen (15) days because she was scheduled to attend a seminar-convention and election of officers for the Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines.
Sermonia requested an extension of thirty (30) days, stating that she needed time to secure counsel and gather evidence to support her comment.

Zerrudo’s additional time was granted in a letter dated December 7, 2010, which she received on January 14, 2011.
Sermonia’s motion for an extension was granted in a letter dated March 11, 2011, received on April 6, 2011.

Despite the granted extensions, nearly a year later, neither respondent had submitted their comments.
On January 26, 2012, the OCA sent separate trace letters again reiterating its directive for the respondents to submit their comments while warning that failure to comply within five (5) working days would result in the matter being submitted to the Court for resolution without their responses.
The trace letters were received on February 28, 2012, yet instead of complying, both respondents filed separate motions for additional time:

Citing the aftermath of an earthquake that affected the Iloilo Hall of Justice Building, both respondents requested an extra ten (10) days to file their comments—stating they were preoccupied with transferring and packing for relocation and still needed to secure witness affidavits.
These additional requests were granted by the OCA through a letter dated March 13, 2012.

Almost ten (10) months later, respondents had still not submitted any comments regarding the allegations.

In its Recommendation dated January 8, 2013, the OCA declared that the repeated and excessive delays in filing comments, which spanned almost two (2) years, amounted to an implicit admission of the charges against the respondents.
The OCA also noted that this inexcusable noncompliance aggravated the respondents’ liability for humiliating the complainants by covering up irregularities regarding the record sheets.
It further highlighted that both respondents had either been facing other administrative complaints or had been previously penalized, drawing attention to their pattern of disregard for administrative protocols.
Based on these findings, the OCA recommended that respondents Zerrudo and Sermonia be found guilty of the offense charged, and suggested a penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay, coupled with a stern warning that any repetition of similar misconduct would be met with harsher sanctions.

The Court recognized that the respondents’ repeated failure to file comments effectively waived their right to rebut the allegations made in the letter-complaint.
Notwithstanding the apparent admission of the charges due to noncompliance, the Court noted ambiguity regarding the intent behind the respondents’ verbal outbursts:

It was unclear whether the crude language was used to cover up procedural irregularities in the attendance record or simply to reprimand the complainants for perceived dereliction of duty.
The evidence did not definitively show that the violent language was intended to mask any wrongdoing related to the record sheets.

While acknowledging the appalling disregard for court procedures and the resulting embarrassment caused to the complainants, the Court opined that the misconduct did not justify the harsher penalty recommended by the OCA.
Ultimately, the Court found both respondents guilty of discourtesy but opted to impose a lesser penalty—a reprimand accompanied by a stern warning—rather than suspending them for six (6) months without pay.

Whether the respondents’ repeated failure to submit their required comments within the prescribed periods effectively constituted an implicit admission of the charges against them.

Consideration was given to the cumulative delays and multiple granted extensions over nearly two years.

Whether the respondents’ conduct—specifically, the act of shouting, using vulgar language, and visibly intimidating the complainants in a public setting—broke the prescribed standards of decorum and professional conduct expected of court employees.

The impact of such behavior, particularly in undermining the dignity of the court, was scrutinized.

Whether the ambiguity surrounding the intent of the respondents’ verbal expressions (i.e., whether aimed at covering up irregularities in the attendance record or merely to admonish alleged procedural lapses by the complainants) could mitigate the harshness of the recommended penalty.