JUDGE MARCIANO T. VIROLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. EMMANUEL A. LATORZA, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39, CALAPAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative complaint filed by Judge Marciano T.
Virola, Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, against
Deputy Sheriff Emmanuel A. Latorza of said court for grave misconduct, gross
neglect of duty and insubordination.

I

Respondent is a deputy sheriff assigned to Branch 39 of the
Regional Trial Court, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, presided by Judge Virola. On October
20, 1993, after announcing the opening of session, respondent left the
courtroom to talk with somebody. Judge
Virola noticed a person wearing a cap at the entrance of the courtroom while
the hearing was going on. He signalled
to call respondent’s attention to that person but respondent did not seem to
understand the signal.

After the hearing, Judge Virola saw respondent at the Office of
the Branch Clerk of Court, where he upbraided him for his neglect of duty to
remain in the courtroom to maintain order while the court was in session. Respondent proffered an explanation, which
the Judge did not accept as satisfactory. This irked respondent, prompting him to belligerently rush towards the
Judge and at the same time, making a motion of drawing something from his
pocket. Thereafter, he told the Judge,
“Pirmi na lamang ako ang minamali ninyo!” The Branch Clerk of Court
prevented respondent from getting close to the Judge and brought him out of the
building.

In his Manifestation dated October 30, 1993, respondent
stated: that at the time he was
reprimanded by Judge Virola, he was suffering from arthritis and rheumatism
which made him hypertensive and emotionally disturbed; that he lost control of
himself and wanted to run berserk; that he had nothing in his pocket to draw as
he just clenched his fist at his back; and that he had apologized to Judge
Virola and gave him his assurance that such kind of incident would not happen
again.

Judge Virola issued an Order dated December 3, 1993, finding
respondent guilty of “indirect contempt” and sentencing him to pay a
fine of two hundred pesos (P200.00) and, upon failure to do so, to be
incarcerated in the Municipal Jail of Calapan for a period of five days (Rollo,
p. 8).

In a Resolution dated February 14, 1994, we referred this
administrative matter to the Vice-Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro for investigation, report and recommendation.

Hearing was set for March 18, 1994 at 2:00 P.M. in the sala of Vice-Executive
Judge Mario C. De la Cruz. However, on
March 17, 1994, Judge Virola withdrew his complaint stating that respondent had
reformed and that he believed that respondent should be given another chance to
continue serving in the government.

In view of the manifestation of Judge Virola, the Investigating
Judge recommended that the administrative case against respondent be
dismissed. In making his
recommendation, the Investigating Judge also took into consideration the fact
that respondent has served the government continuously for 30 years.

II

Respondent’s acts constitute grave misconduct and cannot be left
unpunished. The disrespect and
offensive personalities towards the court degrade the administration of
justice. It is not for complainant to
condone said acts, being an affront to the judicial institution itself more
than to the person of complainant.

In a real sense, Judge Virola is merely a witness and the
proceedings may continue regardless of the pardon extended by him to respondent
(Sy v. Academia, 198 SCRA 705 [1991]).

The incident on October 20, 1993 was the second time respondent
had shown disrespect to the complainant. The first incident happened on June 20, 1991 when Judge Virola
admonished respondent to be more diligent in the performance of his work after
the former learned that the notice of the hearing of a petition set for June
24, 1991 had not been served the parties. On that occasion, respondent reacted by throwing the copy of the notice
of hearing at the Judge and rushing belligerently towards him, like what he did
on October 20, 1993.

The contempt proceedings against respondent do not bar the
administrative proceedings for the same acts because the two proceedings have
different objectives and are prescribed by different rules.

Were it not for the long years of service of respondent in the
government, he should be meted out a severe and drastic punishment for his misconduct.

WHEREFORE, respondent is SUSPENDED for ONE (1) MONTH. Said suspension shall not be charged against
respondent’s accumulated vacation leave credits.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.