G.R. No. A.M. No. P-20-4041. October 13, 2020.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOAN M. DELA CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT V, BRANCH 64, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from the visit of Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta to the Makati City trial courts on November 15, 2019, for the 5th Nationwide Judgment Day Program. Judges present reported that respondent Atty. Joan M. Dela Cruz, the Clerk of Court, was standing at the courtroom doorway, leaning on the frame and blocking the entrance when the Chief Justice arrived. She maintained this posture while speaking to him. When asked about the presiding judge’s whereabouts, she replied nonchalantly that she was teaching at San Beda College. Upon further inquiry about scheduled cases, she curtly stated their branch does not set hearings on Fridays, prompting a reminder from the Chief Justice about the Rules on Continuous Trial. Respondent displayed no apology and continued to speak brashly.
In her compliance with the OCA’s show-cause order, respondent offered a profuse apology, expressing remorse and pleading for leniency. She admitted she “failed to exhibit the grace and courtesy befitting his Honor” and promised to be more mindful. She also explained her failure to calendar cases on that date, citing prior case disposals through plea bargaining. The OCA noted this was respondent’s second administrative charge for discourtesy during office hours.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Joan M. Dela Cruz is administratively liable for gross discourtesy in the course of official duties.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross discourtesy. The Court emphasized that court personnel must always act with strict propriety, courtesy, and decorum. Respondent’s conduct—her lackadaisical posture, blocking the entrance, and impertinent, brash replies to the Chief Justice’s legitimate queries—constituted gross disrespect not only to the person of the Chief Justice but to the judiciary as an institution. Her own admissions in her compliance letter are declarations against interest that substantiate the charge.
Applying the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, gross discourtesy in the course of official duties is a grave offense punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense. The Court found the presence of both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Her length of service (17 years) and immediate apology were mitigating. However, her prior similar administrative offense was a significant aggravating circumstance that offset these mitigations. Consequently, the penalty was set at its medium period: a three-month suspension. Since respondent had resigned effective January 2, 2020, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months of her salary at the time of resignation, to be deducted from her accrued leave credits or other monetary benefits.