A.M. SB -13-20-P [Formerly A.M. No. 12-29-SB-P] - RIA PAMELA B. ABULENCIA AND BLESSIE M. BURGONIO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. REGINO R. HERMOSISIMA, SECURITY GUARD II, SHERIFF AND SECURITY DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior which transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers, [10] work-related or not. [11] In the case at bar, respondent's act of hurling invectives on the complainants during office hours and within the court premises was correctly held to be a case of simple misconduct. Verily, respondents foul and vulgar utterances, albeit not work related, constitute clear deviations from the established norms of conduct which ought to be followed by public officers. For such infractions, it cannot be gainsaid that respondent should be held administratively liable for the same. In this relation, it must be pointed out that respondent's justification, i.e ., that his outbursts were only made out of his frustration due to the delayed release of his loyalty benefit can be hardly regarded as a justifiable excuse. The Court has consistently reminded that court employees are supposed to be well- mannered, civil and considerate in their actuations, both in their relations with co-workers and the transacting public. Boorishness, foul language, and any misbehavior in the court premises diminish its sanctity and dignity. [12] As held in Wee v. Bunao, Jr .: [13] x x x The conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct must at all times be characterized by strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public's respect for the judiciary. Any fighting or misunderstanding among court employees becomes a disgraceful sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary. Professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners, and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees. This standard is applied with respect to a court employee's dealings not only with the public but also with his or her co-workers in the service. Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely corrodes respect for the courts. In fine, having failed to live up to the high standards of propriety and decorum expected of employees of the judiciary, the Court finds that respondent was correctly held administratively liable for simple misconduct. Under Rule 10, Section 46(D)(2) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty for simple misconduct is suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. Accordingly, the penalty recommended by the OCA, being within the range prescribed under the aforesaid rules, is therefore deemed to be proper. WHEREFORE , respondent REGINO R. HERMOSISIMA , Security Guard II of the Sheriff and Security Division of the Sandiganbayan, is found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and is SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, effective immediately upon receipt of this