A.M. No. P-13-3108 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3465-P) - L.G. JOHNNA E. LOZADA AND L.G. LIZA S. MILLADO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. MA. THERESA G. ZERRUDO, CLERK OF COURT IV, AND SALVACION D. SERMONIA, CLERK IV, BOTH OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF ILOILO CITY.R E S O L U

Ruling

accordingly suspended for six (6) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court. Indeed, as correctly pointed out by the OCA, respondents in the present case, by their inexcusable refusal to submit their comments despite all the opportunities provided them, waived their right to rebut the allegations contained in the letter-complaint filed by Lozada and Millado. [4] In fact, respondents cavalier acts of stringing the investigation out by repeatedly filing requests for extension of time to file their comments and still failing to file their comments despite the lapse of almost two years constitute an appalling disrespect of the authority of this Court and its rules and regulations. [5] This inexcusable failure on the part of respondents, by itself, amounts to an act of impudence, as to be contumacious. [6] Even granting the implied admission by respondents of the charges contained in the letter-complaint, We cannot assent to the recommended penalty on respondents. Without a doubt [t]he conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility [since] [t]he image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work therein, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. [7] This Court had stressed that the conduct of employees of the judiciary, particularly those in the first and second level courts, must be circumscribed by the proper and ethical standards. [8] The allegations contained in the complaint, however, do not immediately render respondents guilty of some groundless acts of crudeness that warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty imposed by law for less grave offenses. [9] Instead, it is unclear whether the words uttered by respondents, albeit crudely, were made to cover up the irregularities they were committing vis-a-vis the record sheets containing the attendance of the courts employees or intended to reprimand the complainants for an apparent dereliction of the latters duty to collect, keep, and submit the record sheets of the court employees. It is not even stated in the complaint whether respondents were among the employees trying to sign the record sheets or had already signed the record sheets prior to 8 oclock in the morning and before the said sheets were distributed among the employees who came later. This ambiguity brooks the presumption of good faith behind the respondents actuations. Nonetheless, respondents cannot be fully exonerated from liability. While they may have been properly moved to call attention to an apparent irregularity, respondents acts of shouting while angrily pointing their fingers at the complainants in front and in the presence of so many court personnel and visitors, thus causing complainants shame and embarrassment, cannot be allowed or tolerated. This Court has consi