A.M. No.

P-14-3217
(Formerly OCA IPI NO. 14-4252-RTJ)

October

8,

2014

RE:
ANONYMOUS
LETTER, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE CORAZON D. SOLUREN, PRESIDING JUDGE, and
RABINDRANATH A. TUZON, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, both of BRANCH
91, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BALER, AURORA, Respondents.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an Anonymous Letter 1 dated January 15, 2011 filed by
purported concerned citizens of Aurora, Quezon complaining about the
alleged illegal acts of respondents Judge Corazon D. Soluren (Judge
Soluren) and Legal Researcher II Rabindranath A. Tuzon (Tuzon), both of the
Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 91 (RTC).
The Facts
In the Anonymous Letter, it was alleged that Judge Soluren had been
instructing the party-litigants to deposit with her court settlement money for
various cases2 in her sala. It was elaborated that Tuzon would merely
acknowledge receipt of the settlement money for the different cases through
handwritten notes without issuing any official receipts therefor; afterwhich,
Judge Soluren would order the dismissal of the corresponding cases.
However, when the parties requested for the release of the said money,
Tuzon would fail to timely comply with the same.3
In an Indorsement4 dated March 5, 2012, the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) referred the Anonymous Letter to Executive Judge
Evelyn A. Turla (Executive Judge Turla) of the same RTC, for her discreet
investigation and report. In compliance, Executive Judge Turla sent a
letter5 dated March 15, 2013 to the OCA with Tuzons comment attached
thereto, stating that she did not find any act of irregularity or any
unauthorized collection on the part of the RTC.6

In his Comment7 dated April 25, 2012, Tuzon admitted his receipt of various
amounts as settlement money for the different cases 8 pending before Judge
Solurens sala. He, however, explained that, on orders of Judge Soluren, he
merely accepted the said amounts from the parties who were willing to settle
the civil aspect of their respective cases and kept them in the courts vault.
He also admitted not having issued official receipts for the amounts he
received, not being an accountable officer in possession of such receipts. 9
Anent his failure to timely release the amounts deposited to him, Tuzon gave
the following explanations: (a) in Crim. Case Nos. 4255-56, out of the deposit
of _45,000.00, _39,000.00 was already released to one accused, while the
remaining _6,000.00 has yet to be released to the other; (b) in Crim. Case
No. 4246, the amount of _170,000.00 was not released for failure to set for
hearing the Motion for Release Deposit, and that the amount deposited was
intended for the payment of the accuseds civil liability to the local
government of Casiguran, Aurora; (c) in Crim. Case No. 4393, out of the
amount of _130,000.00, only _33,000.00 was released to the victims mother
as the remaining amount was deposited with a bank and would only be
released in accordance with the disbursement schedule prepared by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development; and (d) the settlement
money in the other cases had already been fully released. 10
Meanwhile, Judge Soluren was no longer investigated due to her compulsory
retirement on January 29, 2012.11
The Action and Recommendation of the OCA
In a Report and Recommendation12 dated April 8, 2014, the OCA
recommended that the complaint against Judge Soluren be considered
closed and terminated on the ground that her compulsory retirement on
January 29, 2012 had divested it of jurisdiction to hear the administrative
complaint against her. Moreover, the OCA found no substantial proof to hold
her liable for the administrative charges against her.13
On the other hand, it found Tuzon guilty of Grave Misconduct and
recommended that he be dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement
benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from
holding public office in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. 14 It held that by

receiving money from the party-litigants under the guise of safekeeping the
same, Tuzon had overstepped his bounds as Legal Researcher. In this
relation, the OCA opined that accepting fiduciary money for the courts
safekeeping is not within the scope of Tuzons duties. Thus, in doing so, he
disregarded the rules of procedure and the law, especially considering that
he kept the money in his possession for a long period of time and did not
issue official receipts therefor. In sum, the OCA deemed Tuzons acts as a
form of Grave Misconduct for which he should be held administratively
liable.15
The Issue Before the Court
Since the case against Judge Soluren had already been closed and
terminated in view of her compulsory retirement on January 29, 2012, the
only issue left for the Courts present resolution is whether or not Tuzon
should be held administratively liable for the charge of Grave Misconduct as
recommended by the OCA.
The Courts Ruling
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.
To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious,
important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply a
wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a
direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public
officers official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful,
intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. 16 In order
to differentiate Grave Misconduct from Simple Misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an
established rule, must be manifest in the former.17
In the instant case, Tuzon readily acknowledged that he accepted various
amounts of settlement money from party-litigants and kept them in his
custody without authority to do so and without issuing any official receipts
therefor. In doing so, he clearly went beyond his duties as a Legal
Researcher of the RTC as enumerated in Item 2.2.1, Subsections 2 (2.2.),
Section D, Chapter VI, Volume I of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of
Court,18 as follows:

2.2.1. Legal Researcher

(1) verifies authorities on questions of law raised by part[y]-litigants in
cases brought before the Court as may be assigned by the Presiding
Judge;
(2) prepares memoranda on evidence adduced by the parties after
the hearing;
(3) prepares outlines of the facts and issues involved in cases set for
pre-trial for the guidance of the Presiding Judge;
(4) prepares indexes to be attached to the records showing the
important pleadings filed, the pages where they may be found, and in
general, the status of the case;
(5) prepares and submits to the Branch Clerk of Court a monthly list
of cases or motions submitted for decision or resolution, indicating
therein the deadlines for acting on the same; and
(6) performs such other duties as may be assigned by the Presiding
Judge or the Branch Clerk of Court.19
In view of the foregoing, the OCA therefore correctly found that Tuzon, being
a Legal Researcher, was not authorized to receive any settlement money
from party-litigants. Neither was it shown that Judge Soluren instructed him
to receive the same. Having kept the money in his possession and exercised
control over it, Tuzon evidently overstepped his authority and, thus,
committed a form of misconduct.20
The Court, however, disagrees with the OCAs appreciation of the
misconducts gravity.1wphi1 Considering the absence of any proof that
Tuzons actions were tainted with corruption, or with a clear intent to violate
the law, or would constitute a flagrant disregard of an established rule say
for instance, by the actual misappropriation of any amount which came to his
possession Tuzon cannot be held liable for Grave Misconduct but only for
Simple Misconduct which is punishable by suspension for a period of one (1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months at the most 21 without pay.22 That
being said, the Court deems it proper to impose the maximum of the
foregoing penalty.

As parting words, court employees like Tuzon would do well to constantly

keep in mind that those in the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and any
act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects its honor and dignity and
the peoples confidence in it. The Institution demands the best possible
individuals in the service and it had never and will never tolerate nor condone
any conduct which would violate the norms of public accountability, and
diminish, or even tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the justice
system. As such, the Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables
who undermine its efforts towards an effective and efficient administration of
justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public. 23
WHEREFORE, respondent Rabindranath A. Tuzon, Legal Researcher II of
the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 91, is found GUILTY of
Simple Misconduct and, hence, meted with the penalty of SUSPENSION for
a period of six (6) months without pay, commencing upon notice of this
Decision, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.
On the other hand, the Court reiterates its Resolution dated June 18, 2014
that the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Corazon D.
Soluren of the same court is hereby considered CLOSED and TERMINATED
in view of her compulsory retirement on January 29, 2012.
SO ORDERED.

A.M. No. P-14-3252 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2960-P], October 14, 2014
JUDGE JUAN GABRIEL H. ALANO, Complainant, v. PADMA L. SAHI, COURT
INTERPRETER,
MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT
TRIAL
COURT,
MALUSO,
BASILAN, Respondent.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This refers to the administrative complaint filed by Judge Juan Gabriel H. Alano (Judge
Alano) of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sumisip, Maluso and Lantawan,
Basilan Province against Padma L. Sahi (Sahi), Court Interpreter I of the same court,
charging her with violations of Sections 11and 2,2 Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel,3 violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019, 4 otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Grave Misconduct and Absence Without Leave
(AWOL).
In the complaint, Judge Alano alleged that Sahi brokered for party litigants and solicited
money and gifts in exchange for favorable decisions in the election protest cases pending
before his court, despite constant reminders to his staff that they should never demand,
solicit, or receive money, gifts or other benefits from any party litigants. For
particulars:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. During the months of November to December 2007, there were 19 election
protests involvingbarangay elective officials filed in the MCTC. Sahi was
constantly telling him that some of the protestants and protestees were offering
cash between P50,000.00 and P100,000.00 in exchange for favorable
judgments.
2. In the middle of December 2007, Sahi went to Judge Alano's chamber and
informed him that Arzad, the protestee in EP11 -2007, offered to give him a brand
new M-4 carbine assault rifle worth at least P180,000.00 "with no strings
attached." So as not to arouse Sahi's suspicions that she was discreetly being
investigated, Judge Alano told her that he preferred to buy a Russian AK-47
assault rifle (Russian AK-47) instead. On January 18, 2008, Sahi informed him
that she has a Russian AK-47 at her home for sale for P70,000.00. After viewing
it, Judge Alano offered to buy the same for P30,000.00 since he noted some
defects. Sahi immediately agreed and insisted that he bring the firearm home.
Judge Alano's suspicion that the firearm was part of a bribe was confirmed by
Sahi
herself.

3.

4.

5.

In April 2008, Sahi informed Judge Alano of Arzad's new offer of a Honda 200R
motorcycle in exchange for a favorable judgment.
Sometime in November 2007, Sahi demanded from Sawari, a protestee in EP092007, to pay the court P50,000.00 in exchange for a favorable judgment. Sahi
further demanded and received from him the amount of P5,000.00 for the alleged
transportation expenses of Judge Alano to Manila.
Abdurajak A. Jalil (Mil), protestant in EP03-2007, claimed that sometime in
December 2007, Sahi solicited from him the amount of P60,000.00 for the
purchase of a printer for the court. Through his son, he gave Sahi the initial
amount of P10,000. Upon inquiry, he learned that Sahi never bought any printer
but instead used the said amount for her own benefit.
Sahi received bribe money in the amount of P50,000.00 and P5,000.00 from
the BarangayChairman of Mebak, Sumisip, Basilan allegedly intended for Judge
Alano. She further stated that the former Mayor of Sumisip, Jim Hataman, was
collecting P200,000.00 from eachbarangay captain through Judge Alano's father.

Judge Alano further claimed that, on May 4, 2008, Sahi went to his residence to inform him
that she already returned the P50,000.00 to Sawari and that there was no truth to the
allegations that she received P5,000.00 allegedly for Judge Alano's travel to Manila.
On Sahi's case of AWOL, Judge Alano also complained that she had not been reporting for
work, and did not even file an official leave application for more than 30 calendar days
since
the
afternoon
of
June
18,
2008.

On August 4, 2008, Sahi narrated that when she reported for work at around 7:30 a.m. she
was prohibited by court personnel to enter the court upon instructions of Judge Alano. On
the following day, Sahi reported the incident to Executive Judge Leo J. Principe (Judge
Principe) and was advised to report, for the meantime, at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)Office
of
the
Clerk
of
Court.
When Sahi did not receive her salary and other benefits for the month of August 2008, she
was allegedly forced to fly to Manila to inquire with the Leave Section of the OAS-OCA
regarding her alleged dropping from the rolls and unclaimed salaries. Upon inquiry, she
was informed that her leave application for June 2008 was disapproved while her July
2008 leave applications were not yet transmitted to the OAS-OCA.
In the Resolution10 dated December 14, 2009, the Court referred the instant administrative
matter to Judge Principe, RTC, Isabela City, Basilan for investigation, report and
recommendation.
On December 1, 2010, acting on Sahi's request for the inhibition of Judge Principe due to
the latter's close family relationship with Judge Alano, the Court ordered the transfer of the
administrative case to Executive Judge Reynerio G. Estacio (Judge Estacio) of the RTC of
Zamboanga Del Sur, Branch 14 for investigation, report and recommendation.

In the 1st Indorsement6 dated October 6, 2008, Sahi was directed to file her Comment
within
10
days
from
receipt
thereof.

On July 25, 2013, Judge Estacio submitted his report and recommendation 11 dated July 12,
2013 with the following findings:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The undersigned is convinced that respondent had indeed, been into the activities of
brokering for party litigants and soliciting money or gifts, in consideration for favorable
decision. The respondent admitted to having heard herself of rumors that she received
P70,000.00 from a party litigant and that the same was indeed, brought to the attention of
the complainant. Rumors on respondent's activities prompted complainant to subject the
respondent to investigation, lest he would be suspected of being involved therein, if not
faulted
for
tolerating
respondent's
acts.

On November 17, 2008, Sahi filed her Answer7 denying that she defied the order given by
Judge Alano in relation to soliciting gifts or money from party litigants. She contended that
she went inside the chambers of Judge Alano because the latter requested her to look for
a dealer of a Russian AK-47. When she found one through Arzad, Judge Alano allegedly
wanted to view the firearm at her house. The sale, however, was not consummated
because the owner and Judge Alano failed to agree on the purchase price.

The respondent was said to have been calling the complainant's attention to the offer
either in cash of various amounts or in kind, by the protestants and protestees in exchange
for a favorable decision in their election protest cases pending before his sala in
connection with the 2007 Barangay Election, despite his constant reminder to her not to
entertain the same. The complainant has been cautioning the respondent not to demand,
solicit or receive money or other gifts or benefits from any party litigant.

She denied that she informed Judge Alano of Arzad's alleged offer of a brand new
motorcycle and that she received P5,000.00 from Jalil for Judge Alano's travel.

True indeed, the said acts of the respondent found confirmation in the Affidavit of
Complaint of Gajad Sawari, Protestee in EPC No. 09-2007, subscribed and sworn to on
April 29, 2008, wherein he declared that respondent demanded from him P50,000.00 in
consideration of her promise for a favorable action on the election protest case filed
against him, which amount, he delivered to her at her house at Barangay Kaumpurnah,
Isabela City, Basilan, on January 4, 2008; and in his Supplemental Affidavit which he
subscribed and swore to on May 13, 2008, wherein he declared that in April 2008, the
respondent demanded from him the amount of P5,000.00 allegedly, for the complainant's
travel to Manila, which amount, he delivered to the respondent also at the latter's house at
Kaumpurnah,
Isabela
City.

On July 11 and 24, 2008, Judge Alano requested the Leave Section of the Office of the
Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA), to drop Sahi from
the rolls pursuant to Section 63 5 of the Omnibus Leave Rules for being on AWOL for more
than
30
calendar
days.

She countered that the two witnesses presented against her were the type who can easily
be pressured to execute a document, like affidavits, without being fully aware of its
consequences
and
content.
With respect to Judge Alano's allegation on her failure to report for work without prior
leave, Sahi contended that she was forced not to report for work on June 10 and 11, 2008
and June 18 until July 2008 because she was having high fever, prompting her to seek
medical help in Basilan. She said that she was found to be suffering from acute
bronchitis8 and
later
on,
of
urinary
tract
infection.9cralawred
Sahi claimed that she filed her leave applications for the absences incurred and presumed
that they were recommended for approval. She later on discovered that her leave
application was just thrown to the waste basket by Judge Alano.

Similarly, Abdurajak Jalil, protestee in EPC No. 06-2007, in his affidavit of complaint
subscribed and sworn to on May 15, 2008, declared that during the pendency of his case
sometime in December 2007, and while he was at the Isabela City Hall of Justice, the
respondent solicited from him the amount of [P60,000.00], allegedly, for the purchase of a
printer for court's use with the assurance that he will get a favorable decision in the

election protest case filed against him; that he was able to agree with her to give the
amount but on installment basis with the first payment of PI 0,000.00 delivered to her by
his son, Hassan Jalil, for which the respondent issued a receipt.
Hassan Jalil confirmed the sworn statement of his father, Abdujarak Jalil, in his affidavit
subscribed and sworn to also on May 15, 2008. He also identified respondent's receipt x x
x.
Comparing the signature appearing on the receipt with the signature of the respondent
appearing on the Clerk of Court's Log Book of Attendance, the undersigned finds that the
signature appearing on the receipt is strikingly, similar to the signature of the respondent
appearing
on
the
Clerk
of
Court's
Log
Book
of
Attendance.
The respondent on the other hand, had only to say that it is in the height of stupidity and
hence, unbelievable that, she would sign the receipt which could be used against her,
adding that the questioned receipt could easily be procured, implying that the same is
fabricated evidence. The respondent could have dared the questioned signature subject to
handwriting examination, to prove that it is indeed, a forgery. She however, did not and did
not even, attempt.12

single

witness

to

belie

the

accusations

hurled

against

her.

Time and time again, the Court has stressed that the behavior of all employees and
officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is
circumscribed with a heavy responsibility.15 "That is why, the Court provides the rule
against any form of solicitations of gift or other pecuniary or material benefits or receipts of
contributions for himself/herself from any person, whether or not a litigant or lawyer, to
avoid any suspicion that the major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel
in
performing
official
duties."16cralawred
Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, provides that "court
personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or
implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions,"
while Section 2(e), Canon III states that "court personnel shall not x x x solicit or accept
any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality or service under circumstances from
which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the
court
personnel
in
performing
official
duties."

The findings and the recommendation of the Investigating Judge are well-taken.

In the present case, the corrupt practice of Sahi in soliciting and receiving bribe money
from party litigants on the pretext that they will obtain a favorable judgment undoubtedly
degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the people for the court
and its personnel. Such practice constitutes grave misconduct in office which is appalling.
It is a grave offense that carries an equally grave penalty. Under Section 22(c) of Rule XIV
of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other
Pertinent Civil Service Laws, gross misconduct is classified as a grave offense. The
penalty
for
this
offense
is
dismissal
even
for
the
first
offense.

As found by Judge Estacio, the evidence on record undeniably shows that during several
instances, Sahi solicited and received various sums of money from party litigants in the
election protest cases pending before the 2 nd MCTC of Sumisip, Maluso and Lantawan,
Basilan Province despite constant reminders from Judge Alano not to demand, solicit or
receive money or other gifts or benefits from any party litigant. In fact, Judge Alano's
discreet investigation was corroborated by affidavits executed by the parties who stated
that Sahi exacted money from them in exchange for favorable judgments in the sala of
Judge
Alano.13cralawred

This Court has been resolute in its drive to discipline and, if warranted, to remove from the
service errant magistrates, employees and even Justices of higher collegiate appellate
courts for any infraction that tends to give the Judiciary a bad name. The Court has been
unflinching in imposing discipline on errant personnel or in purging the ranks of those
undeserving to remain in the service, such as in this case. Thus, this Court finds the
respondent administratively liable for improper solicitation and imposes the penalty
prescribed by prevailing rules and jurisprudence, which is dismissal from service on the
first
offense.17cralawred

Moreover, the records of the case will show that the party litigants in the election protest
cases pending before Judge Alano's court had the impression that Sahi was acting as an
agent of Judge Alano. This explained why several protestants and protestees inquired from
several court personnel if Judge Alano received the bribe money they gave through Sahi.
Convincingly, the Affidavits of Sawari and Jalil showed Sahi's corrupt practice of soliciting
money
in
exchange
for
favorable
judgments.

Anent Sahi's continuous absences, this Court finds that she, indeed, had been AWOL from
June 18, 2008 until September 24, 2008, or for 67 consecutive working days. 18cralawred

Judge Estacio recommended that Sahi be dismissed from service, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporation, and forfeiture of all her benefits, except
accrued
leave
credits.

To escape liability, Sahi proffered her defense of bare denial and self-serving claim that
she never acted as broker to any party litigant. According to her, the affidavits executed by
the party litigants should not be taken as gospel truth because they are the kind of persons
who can easily be pressured to execute a document without being fully aware of its
consequences and contents. It bears to note, however, that during the hearing held on
March 30, 2011 at about 2:00 p.m., Sawari and Jalil, together with the latter's son, Hassan
Jalil,
appeared
and
re-affirmed
their
respective
affidavits.
Clearly, Sahi failed to overcome the positive, candid, and straightforward testimonies of the
complaining party litigants. By jurisprudence, "denial is an intrinsically weak defense which
must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility." 14 In the
present case, the investigating judge took note of the fact that Sahi failed to present even a

The records show that Sahi's absences from June 18, 2008 to June 30, 2008 were
unauthorized because her application for leave was disapproved by Judge Alano on the
ground, among others, that no notice was given by Sahi regarding her alleged illness
despite reports from court employees that she was able to personally claim her paycheck
on June 20, 2008 and that she was seen loitering around the City prior to that date.
On Sahi's claim that she submitted her sick and vacation leave application for the month of
July, the records show that the same was neither acted upon nor filed at all with the court.
Pursuant to Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended by Civil
Service Resolution No. 070631, an employee's AWOL for at least 30 working days
warrants
his
separation
from
the
service.
The
Rule
specifically
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approved leave. An official or employee who is
continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days shall be
considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the

service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. However, when it is clear under the
obtaining circumstances that the official or employee concerned, has established a
scheme to circumvent the rule by incurring substantial absences though less than thirty
working (30) days 3x in a semester, such that a pattern is already apparent, dropping from
the
rolls
without
notice
may
likewise
be
justified.
If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less than tiirty (30) working days, a
written Return-to-Work-Order shall be served to him at his last known address on record.
Failure on his part to report for work within the period stated in the order shall be valid
ground to drop him from the rolls.
In this connection, Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations,
as
amended
by
Circular
No.
14,
series
of
1999,
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approved leave. - An official or employee who is
continuously absent without approved leave for at east thirty (30) calendar days shall be
considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the
service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed, a1
his address appearing on his 201 files, of his separation from the service not later than five
(5) days from its effectivity.
Thus, under civil service rules, Sahi should be dropped from the rolls on account of her
continued unauthorized absence since June 18, 2008. Proofs of Sahi's ongoing AWOL are:
(1) her disapproved leave application for the month of June 2008; (2) the absence of any
application for leave during the remaining relevant dates; (3) the letters dated July 11 and
24, 2008 of Judge Alano to the Leave Section of the OAS-OCA, sating that Sahi had been
on AWOL for more than 30 calendar days; and (4) the Certification 19 issued by Clerk of
Court Pawaki dated September 24, 2008 stating that Sahi had not been reporting for work
since June 18, 2008 and that she had not given any notice of her absences.
A court employee who goes on AWOL for a prolonged period of time disrupts the normal
functioning of the organization20 and delays its operations. His conduct is prejudicial to the
best interest of public service. 21 It contravenes a public servant's duty to serve the public
with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.22 It also manifests
disrespect for his superiors and colleagues, in particular, and for the service and the public
at
large,
in
general.
By going on AWOL, Sahi grossly ignored and abandoned the duties of her office. She
failed to remain faithful to the high standards of public accountability imposed on all those
in
government
service.23cralawred
Moreover, Judge Estacio also took note of Sahi's poor performance rating in the discharge
of her duties and responsibilities as Court Interpreter. The report and recommendation of
Judge Estacio stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The absences of [Sahi] from June 19 to August 1, 2008, were incurred without prior
approval. [Sahi] has been remiss in her duties as interpreter of the court and her
continuous absence from work has been prejudicial to public service. In fact, [Judge Alano]
has expressed his dissatisfaction with her performance for the past four (4) years x x x. 24
The Court has repeatedly held that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with
an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. The Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those
involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public
accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the
Judiciary.25cralawred

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Padma L. Sahi, Court Interpreter I of the 2 nd Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Sumisip, Maluso and Lantawan, Basilan Province, GUILTY of GRAVE
MISCONDUCT and imposes upon her the penalty of DISMISSAL with forfeiture of
retirement benefits except leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch,
instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

A.M. No. P-09-2673 (A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-857-P), October 21, 2014
FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR, Petitioner, v. PAUL M. RESURRECCION AND MARICAR M.
EUGENIO,Respondents.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Any employee or official of the Judiciary who usurps the functions of another employee or
official, or illegally exacts money from law practitioners and litigants is guilty of grave
misconduct, and may be dismissed from the service even for the first offense.
The Charge
In his complaint-affidavit dated March 15, 2000, Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar denounced
Court Interpreter Paul M. Resurreccion of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 276, in
Muntinlupa City, for committing acts of extortion, illegal exaction, and blackmail by using
his position to extort money from him, a law practitioner, in exchange for non-existent
goodwill,
and
for
violation
of
Administrative
Circular
No.
31-90. 1
In the course of the investigation of the complaint-affidavit filed against Resurreccion,
Court; Stenographer Maricar M. Eugenio testified in favor of Resurreccion. She thereby
laid the responsibility for the ex parte reception of the evidence on Gina Bacayon, then the
acting clerk of court. She claimed that being the stenographer recording the ex
parte presentation of evidence on February 26, 1997, she was the one who had asked for
the payment of the transcript of the stenographic notes from Atty. Pulgar. However, her
testimony invited suspicion of her covering up Resurreccion's malfeasance, leading to her
being likewise investigated and made to answer for dishonesty.
Antecedents
In his complaint-affidavit, Atty. Pulgar set forth Resurreccion's acts in the following
manner:2
1. I am the counsel for the petitioner in Civil Case No. 95-079 entitled Rey O.
Chand vs. Armenia P. Chand for Annulment of marriage based on Art. 36 of the
Family Code;chanrobleslaw
2. The complaint was filed in April 1996 and eventually the afore-indicated case
was set for hearing before the Commissioner on February 26,
1997;chanrobleslaw
3. Herein affiant presented his first and only witness, the petitioner Rey O. Chand
and he testified on the factual grounds on why the marriage celebrated between
him and the defendant should be dissolved;chanrobleslaw

4.

After the presentation of ex-parte evidence, I was being charged by the Acting
Clerk of Court, Paul M. Resurreccion to whom I paid the first P2,000.00 and I
promised to pay the balance of P3,000.00 on the following day. No receipt was
issued to the undersigned;chanrobleslaw
5. The following day, I sent my Liaison Officer, Oswaldo L. Serdon who brought with
him the P3,000.00 in cash with my instruction that he pays the Acting Clerk of
Court the said amount of P3,000.00. My L.O paid the respondent, however the
Acting Clerk of Court failed to issue the corresponding receipt;chanrobleslaw
6. Undersigned being a sucker for public relations and being a practicing lawyer
who does not want to cross or antagonize court personnel of Branch 276 by not
giving in to his unwarranted exaction although this not embodied nor allowed in
the Rules of Court by coming across to the importunings of
respondent;chanrobleslaw
7. Sometime on June 26, 1997 I received a copy of the Resolution denying our
Petition. Undersigned was perturbed by the turn of events because the Acting
Clerk of Court promised that he shall be the one to take care of a favorable
decision in exchange for the payment that I made. But since, the decision was
adverse I did not anymore bother to file a Motion for Reconsideration and again
being a sucker for public relations treated the dismissal as one of those things
being encountered by a practicing attorney;chanrobleslaw
8. Sometime on February 21, 2000 at around 9:00 a.m while I was attending a
case before the Sala of the Honorable Norma Perello in People of the Philippines
vs. Marlon Velancio, I was approached by the person announcing the cases
whom I later or (sic) able to identify as the respondent, and he asked whether I
am the Atty. Pulgar who was the counsel of Rey O. Chand in the afore-indicated
case of annulment of marriage;chanrobleslaw
9. I answered in the affirmative. Then all of a sudden Paul M. Ressureccion uttered
"may utang pa kayong dapat bayaran sa akin doon sa kaso ni Rey O.
Chand sa ex-parte. Ibinigay na raw sa inyo yung pera pero hindi ninyo
naman daw na i-bayad" the voice of Raul Resurrecion was loud enough to be
heard by almost everybody in the Sala. As a matter of fact, another employee
butted-in and said "wala pang ibinabayad kayo Atty." And Paul Resurrecion
again uttered and said "ibinigay na sa inyo, aba'y bayaran n'yo na at ng
matapos na ang kasong yan". I reasoned that the case that he was referring to
was already dismissed and as far as I am concerned it was already terminated
and I said "why should I pay again when it was already dismissed. As a
matter of fact, I paid already then why are still exacting payment from me?."
Again, in an angry voice respondent reiterated his previous demands. To cut the
display of unbecoming behavior of the respondent court personnel I told
him "mabuti pa maghaharap tayo."
10. In view thereof, I am formally charging Paul M. Resurreccion of extortion,
illegal exaction, and blackmail by using his position to extort money from a
practitioner in exchange for non-existent goodwill and for violation of
Administrative Circular No. 31-90 particularly Sec. 76 which provides: x x x
On May 25, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), acting on the complaintaffidavit, required Resurreccion to submit his comment within ten days from receipt. 3
In
his
comment,4 Resurrection
explanations:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Pars.
1,
2
and
3
of
the

tendered
complaint-affidavit

the
are

following
admitted.

Par. 4 is vehemently denied. I did not take the ex-parte presentation of evidence for his
client, much more received the initial P2,000.00, and the promised P3,000.00 the following
day, hence, must issue the corresponding receipt. In fact, the testimony of the Petitioner

was taken before the Clerk of Court not before this Branch Clerk of Court, who is not a
lawyer. The Honorable Judge was then available and in attendance on February 26, 1997.
The Resolution denying the Petition was prepared by the Presiding Judge assisted by the
Clerk
of
Court.
Par. 5. If it is true that his Liaison Officer went to my office the following day, and paid the
P3,000.00, where is the Affidavit of his Liaison Officer attesting that he/she gave any
money to me? Again, it is emphasized that ex-parte presentation of evidence, was taken
by the Office of the Clerk of Court never by me, the Branch Clerk of Court, hence, no
payment, granting there was, will be forthcoming to me. I did nor render any service in
connection with this case. Why would this lawyer pay me P2,000.00 and be promised
P3,000.00
more
for
doing
nothing?
He
is
truly
confused!
Par. 6 is denied for the same reason as No. 5. I am not an extortionist, much more
"importunings." Even granting this is so, I cannot ask to be paid for doing nothing.
Par. 7 is admitted as the Resolution in that case was sent to complainant, which was
adverse to him. The reason why the PETITION was denied, was the negligence of Atty.
Pulgar who did not present the Psychiatrist, not even her report, while this Petition is based
on psychological incapacity yet. Now he is trying to redeem himself by making it appear
that he lost because he did not pay the alleged P3,000.00. How cheap can he get. The
price[-]of his incompetence is truly minimal. In fact, upon a Motion for Reconsideration by
another lawyer, the case was re-opened, the Psychiatrist testimony and report taken, and
the decision was reconsidered. His client probably saw his negligence, so he got himself
another lawyer. The case was lost due to his negligence, if not ignorance, not because of
the
lack
of
P3,000.00.
Par. 8. If I ever I talke (sic) with Atty. Pulgar on February 21, 2000 at around 9:00 A.M. it
was to remind him about the payment of the transcript, upon the prodding of the
stenographer, who had been asking for its payment, from this squelching lawyer, who
refused to pay. I only echoed the pleas of said stenographer, who herself attested to the
unpaid
sum,
and
seconded
my
request.
Par. 9. I politely approached Atty. Pulgar, NEVER in a demanding manner as I have no
right to the amount due to the stenographer. It was Atty. Pulgar who instead shouted,
embarrassed probably, because he knew that his client told us that he had remitted the
payment for the TSN to Atty. Pulgar by way of a check, issued to him. But Atty. Pulgar
never paid the stenographer for the transcript. All that he paid for was the Commissioner's
fee. Surely, if there is any amount due me, I cannot announce this and demand for it in a
loud manner, specially, if I am "committing graft." Why would I OPENLY demand the
money from Atty. Pulgar in the presence of lawyers and other people. It was him, shame
that made him defensive knowing that the sum for the stenographer was kept by him.
Par. 10 is strongly disputed. Asking for any sum from any lawyer or party litigant, much
more "extort", is never tolerated in our office. My presiding judge will gun me down, and I
mean literally, because she carries a gun, if this is ever done by anyone of her staff.
Finally, it is impossible for me or anyone of us to ask money from the LOSING party,
should
we
ever
ask,
which
never
happened!
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this baseless, unfounded, tramped-up (sic)
and malicious charge by this negligent, penny squelching, and blundering lawyer, who did
not pay the TSN even though he received the sum from his client, be dismissed.
Upon the recommendation of then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., 5 the Court

called upon then Executive Judge Norma C. Perello (Judge Perello) of the Regional Trial
Court in Muntinlupa City (RTC in Muntinlupa City) to investigate the complaint-affidavit,
and
to
report
and
submit
her
recommendations
thereon. 6
On December 12, 2002, Judge Perello submitted her report and recommendation to the
OCA, stating that the complaint-affidavit against Resurreccion should be dismissed due to
what she perceived as the failure of Atty. Pulgar to substantiate his charge. 7
On April 24, 2003, however, the OCA rejected the findings and recommendation of Judge
Perello, and, instead, recommended that the case be referred to another investigator in the
person of Judge Juanita Tomas-Guerrero (Judge Guerrero) of the RTC in Muntinlupa
City.8 Accordingly, on June 16, 2003, the Court directed Judge Guerrero to conduct further
investigation, and to submit her report and recommendation; and to exhaust all possible
means
to
locate
Atty.
Pulgar.9
In the ensuing hearings conducted by Judge Guerrero, Court Stenographer Maricar
Eugenio of the RTC in Muntinlupa City testified that it was Gina Bacayon, then acting clerk
of court, who had received the evidence ex parte in the case of Atty. Pulgar; 10 that being
the stenographer who had recorded the ex parte presentation of evidence on February 26,
1997,11 she had asked for the payment of the transcript of the stenographic notes from Atty.
Pulgar;12 and that she had submitted a duplicate copy of the transcript of the stenographic
notes.13
Report
and
Recommendation
of
Investigating Judge Guerrero
In her report and recommendation dated October 22, 2003, 14 Judge Guerrero made the
following conclusions and recommendations, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
CONCLUSIONS:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court concludes that the following scenarios must have
happened
on
February
26,
1997
and
February
21,
2000:
On February 26, 1997, after the case of Rey Chand was called, the Court allowed the
petitioner to present evidence ex-parte because of the failure of Armenia Chand to file her
Answer. As is the practice and being the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Mr. Resurreccion
was allowed to receive the evidence of the petitioner while the Court was busy hearing
other cases ready for trial. Since Mr. Resurreccion, being also the Court Interpreter, was
needed in the courtroom, he had to call Ms. Gina Bucayon, the Acting Clerk of Court, who
is also not a lawyer, to attend to the ex-parte proceedings. This is probably the reason why
Ms. Bucayon's handwritings appeared in the minutes of February 26, 1997 and why Mr.
Resurreccion claimed that he did not know Atty. Pulgar as he had not met him. As was the
practice, Atty. Pulgar could have given the fee for the ex-parte to Mr. Resurreccion through
Ms. Bucayon. Then, Mr. Oswaldo Serdon went to the court office and delivered the
balance of the ex-parte proceedings but which failed to reach Mr. Resurreccion as he had
just left it on a table. In the meantime, the Rey Chand case was dismissed.
Subsequently, while Mr. Chand was following up his case after it was revived, he
mentioned that he has paid the commissioner's fee inclusive of stenographer's fee to his
lawyer (Atty. Pulgar) for the ex-parte proceedings of February 26, 1997. So, when Atty.
Pulgar appeared again on February 21, 2000, Ms. Thelma Manlingit who was familiar with
Atty. Pulgar, had to call the attention of Mr. Resurreccion about Mr. Pulgar's presence in
the courtroom. Mr. Resurrecion, then demanded payment of what was due him as
commissioner's fee since he failed to receive it from either Atty. Pulgar or his liaison officer.
Atty. Pulgar got irked by the demand for said fee and shouted because as far as he was
concerned no amount was due since the Rey Chand case was already dismissed.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
Mr. Paul Resurreccion could not be held liable for extorting money from Atty. Pulgar
because Extortion is defined as compelling of a person by a wrongful and illegal means
(duress, threats, etc.) to give up money or property. There was neither force nor
intimidation committed by Mr. Resurreccion in demanding money from a lawyer or litigant.
However, the Court finds Mr. Resurreccion guilty of exacting money for some legal fees
that do not exist. While Sec. 6, Rule 130 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure allows a judge to
delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court who is a member of the bar in
defaults or ex-parte hearings, the Supreme Court does not give the commissioner the
privilege to collect money from the litigant or lawyer as legal fees for this purpose. Rule
141 of the Rules of Court enumerates the numerous legal fees that may be collected by
the courts, commissioner's fees for receiving evidence are not one of them. The demand
thereof under the guise of a commissioner's fee is illegal and tantamount to conduct
grossly
prejudicial
to
the
best
interest
of
the
service.
Employees of the Judiciary are expected to be examples of integrity, honesty and
uprightness. Their conduct should be characterized by propriety and decorum. Mr. Paul
Resurreccion being the designated Acting Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 276
should be an exemplar of all these characteristics. The Manual of Clerks of Court that
prohibits the collection of commissioner's fees in an ex-parte proceeding binds him.
Furthermore, he and his lawyer's act of dictating upon his witness, Rey O. Chand on what
to say in an investigation is detestable and contumacious, to say the least, he being a
judicial employee whose main task is to see to it that the administration of justice is upheld.
The Respondent's actions also caused needless anxiety and shame on the part of the
complainant thereby diminishing the latter's faith not only with the Regional Trial Courts of
Muntinlupa but in the entire Judiciary. The gradual erosion of public confidence in the
Judiciary caused by the failure of Mr. Resurreccion to uphold the objective of the Supreme
Court in improving public service and preserving the people's faith and confidence in the
government, is constitutive of the offense Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of
the
Service
for
which
respondent
must
be
made
answerable.
x

As this is the first time that the respondent committed the act complained of, it is hereby
recommended that MR. PAUL RESURRECCION be suspended for one (1) year from
service without pay. Any repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more
severely.15chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In addition, Judge Guerrero found impropriety on the part of Eugenio,
observing:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
As an aside: Equally detestable is the attempt of the other court employees of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 276 more particularly, Ms. Maricar M. Eugenio to cover up the
wrongdoings of their comrade by testifying falsely, should not go unchecked. Ms. Eugenio
should also be penalized for trying to mislead the Court by making such false testimony.
Her actuation amounts to neglect in the performance of [her] official function as co-player
in the administration of justice. The undersigned recommends that she be
reprimanded.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
First Report of the OCA
In its memorandum for the Court dated July 6, 2009, 17 the OCA rendered its own findings

based on the report and recommendation of Judge Guerrero, and recommended: (a) that
Resurreccion be dismissed from the service; and (b) that Eugenio be ordered to explain
why she should not be held administratively liable, viz:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respectfully submitted for the consideration of the
Honorable
Court,
are
the
following
recommendations:
1. That this instant administrative complaint be REDOCKETED as a regular administrative
matter;chanrobleslaw
2. That respondent Paul M. Resurreccion be found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct for:
1.1)
committing gross violation of the following:
a) Circular No. 50-2001, August 21, 2001, Unauthorized Collection of Fees or
Amount of Compensation by Clerks of Court for Reception of Evidence ExParte for demanding commissioner's fee in ex-parte proceedings;
b) Section 9, Rule 30, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that only a
member of the bar may sit as commissioner to receive evidence ex-parte in
default or ex-parte hearings;
c) Republic Act No. 6713, Section 7, Paragraph (d) which prohibits public
officials and employees from soliciting or accepting "directly or indirectly, any
gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from
any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any
operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by
the function of their office.
1.2)
inducing his witness Rey O. Chand to give false testimony;
3. That respondent Paul M. Ressurreccion be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture
of all benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations;
and
4. That Maricar M. Eugenio, Court Stenographer, Regional Trial Court, Branch 276,
beDIRECTED to COMMENT, within ten (10) days from notice, why she should not be held
administratively liable for grave misconduct for giving false testimony in the administrative
proceedings of the case and for making fictitious and excessive claim for payment of nonexistent Transcript of Stenographic Notes.18chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In view of the recommendation of the OCA as to her, the Court required Eugenio to show
cause why she should not be held administratively liable for grave misconduct. 19
On November 13, 2009, Eugenio proffered her comment, denying giving false testimony in
favor of Resurreccion and stating as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I did not give false testimony in the administrative proceedings conducted by Hon. Judge
Guerrero and for making fictitious and excessive claim for payment of a non-existent
transcript of stenographic notes (TSN for short). I only told the truth as I am a God-fearing
person. Nowhere in my testimony that I demanded excessive claim for the payment of TSN
and admitted before the Honorable Judge that I was asking for the payment of my TSN in
connection with the case of Rey Chand which was already terminated. When I was asked
how much was I am demanding for the payment of said TSN, I simply stated "Wala po
akong sinabing amount", so how could I be charged for making fictitious and excessive
claim for payment of non-existent transcript of stenographic notes? My answer on Page
35, TSN dated August 14, 2003 on the question of the Court: is that the duty of the lawyer
to pay the tsn or the client? And the answer reflected on the said tsn which I quote "A:
What I know is that in the payment of commissioner's fee is the payment of transcript of
stenographic notes", which the interpretation is not correct, I answered in vernacular during
that said hearing is: "Ang pagkakaalam ko po ang bayad sa tsn ay kasama na doon sa

commissioner's fee". I was even asked by Atty. Pulgar about my educational attainment,
and the answer as stated in the said tsn is Secretary, which is very erroneous. The answer
should be Secretarial. Also in the said hearing, I was asked by the Court where is the said
transcript, I told the Honorable Judge, I will just bring the same to her. So after the said
hearing, I looked for the said TSN and gave the same to one of Judge Guerrero's staff, as
she, the staff, even went to our office to ask for the same. I gave her the said tsn together
with the diskette. If the said transcript of stenographic notes is inexistent, how could then
Judge Perello finished (sic) her Resolution/Decision regarding the annulment case of Mr.
Rey Chand if no transcript of stenographic notes was ever attached to the case record as it
was an ex-parte presentation of Petitioner's evidence? Of course, Judge Perello could not
decide
the
same,
as
it
was
taken
ex-parte.
As a matter of fact, the Resolution/Decision of the said Annulment case has already been
issued and its finality was given likewise. I did not lie in my testimony before Honorable
Judge Guerrero. What I told is only the truth and I was innocent of the charges imputed in
my person. Even without the presence of a lawyer, I testified to tell the truth about the
charge against Mr. Paul Resurreccion. I did not give a false testimony and for making a
fictitious and excessive claim for the payment of a nonexistent transcript of stenographic
notes, as in fact I furnished the said tsn to the Office of Honorable Judge Guerrero,
together with the diskette, when I was required to do so.20
Second Report of the OCA
In its July 22, 2011 memorandum,21 the OCA stated its findings and recommendations on
the administrative liability of Eugenio, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
For deliberately offering false testimony during the investigatory hearing, there is
substantial evidence that respondent Eugenio committed the act of dishonesty. It
behooved respondent Eugenio to testify truthfully in accordance with the oath she took
before her testimony was taken during the investigation conducted by Investigating Judge
Guerrero. Sadly, she disregarded the sanctity of her oath due to her misplaced loyalty to
respondent Resurreccion. Time and time again, the Court has stressed that every
employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like
any public servant, she must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in
the performance of her official duties but most especially when she herself is on the
witness
stand,
to
preserve
the
court's
good
name
and
standing.
Moreover, respondent Eugenio's failure to attach the T.S.N taken on 26 February 1997
amounts to simple neglect of duty which is classified as a less grave offense under
subsection B(l) of the same section and is penalized by suspension of one (1) month and
one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. This
is her second infraction of such nature in her eighteen (18) years of service in the
Judiciary. As earlier mentioned, the Court extended its compassion the first time
respondent Eugenio committed simple neglect of duty and imposed upon her the penalty
of a fine instead of suspension. The instant case is, however, significantly different in that,
aside from committing simple neglect of duty, she further committed an act constituting
dishonesty
which
is
a
more
serious
offense.
x

Premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that:

1. Respondent Maricar M. Eugenio, Court Stenographer, RTC Branch 276,
Muntinlupa City be IMPLEADED as a corespondent in the administrative matter;
and
2. Respondent Maricar M. Eugenio be found GUILTY of dishonesty and simple
neglect of duty, imposing upon her the penalty of SUSPENSION of SIX (6)

months without pay, with a stern warning that commission of the same or similar
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.22
Ruling of the Court
We

consider

and

declare

the

findings

of

the

OCA

fully

warranted.

Enshrining the tenet that a public office is a public trust, Section 1, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution mandates that public officers and employees, who are servants of the people,
must at all times be accountable to them, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. To enforce this
constitutional tenet, the Court has incessantly reminded that officials and employees
involved in the administration of justice should faithfully adhere to their mandated duties
and responsibilities. Any act of impropriety on their part - whether committed by the highest
judicial official or by the lowest member of the judicial workforce - can greatly erode the
people's confidence in the Judiciary. This is because the image of a court of justice is
necessarily mirrored in the conduct of its personnel; hence, it becomes their constant duty
to maintain the good name and standing of the Judiciary as a true temple of justice. 23
At the time material to this administrative case, Resurreccion was the Court Interpreter of
Branch 276 of the RTC in Muntinlupa City. In order to maintain the trust and confidence of
the people in the Judiciary, therefore, he should have acted within the limits of his authority
as such. Although his Presiding Judge designated him as commissioner to receive
evidence ex parte in some cases, he still could not discharge or perform that task because
he was not a member of the Philippine Bar, and thus had no authority whatsoever to act or
serve as such commissioner to receive the evidence ex parte of any of the parties. But, as
the records indicated, he served as such commissioner. His deliberate assumption of the
duties of a commissioner for that purpose blatantly transgressed the limits of his official
functions as the Court Interpreter, and constituted unmitigated usurpation of powers. Such
irregularity was undeniable, because the language of Section 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of
Court, of which he and his Presiding Judge were well aware, was straightforward and
unequivocal,viz:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court. The judge of the court
where the case is pending shall personally receive the evidence to be adduced by the
parties. However, in default or ex parts hearings, and in any case where the parties
agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of
court who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court shall have no power to rule on
objections to any question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall be
resolved by the court upon submission of his report and the transcripts within ten (10) days
from termination of the hearing, (n)chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Compounding the usurpation of powers was the more serious offense of illegally exacting
fees from litigants and their lawyers or representatives. It is worth mentioning that Circular
No. 50-2001, which proscribed the unauthorized collection of fees or amounts of
compensation by clerks of court for their reception of evidence ex parte, was issued only
on August 21, 2001. Even then, Resurreccion could not feign ignorance of the prohibition
because the Manual of Clerks of Court, which had been issued long before the issuance of
Circular No. 50-2001, already contained a similar prohibition that explicitly stated: No
Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner's fees for reception of
evidence
ex-parte.24
In view of the foregoing, the recommendation of the OCA for the immediate dismissal of
Resurreccion from the service is warranted. His acts of dishonesty, usurpation of official
functions and illegal exaction demanded that we classify his acts as grave misconduct. In
grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption,

clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest.
They were so in his case. Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consisted in his
acts of unlawfully or wrongfully using his position or character of his office to procure some
benefit for himself or for another, contrary to the rights of others. 25cralawred The collection
of the fees had no legal basis whatsoever; hence, his illegal exactions were outrightly and
plainly corrupt. It then becomes unavoidable for us to judge his transgressions as
motivated by the lust for money and power, rather than having proceeded from his
unfamiliarity
with
standing
rules
and
guidelines.
Dismissal from the service was called for because of the grave nature of Resurreccion's
offense, fie thereby revealed his absolute unworthiness to remain in the service of the
Judiciary. Indeed, he should not be allowed to serve a minute longer in the Judiciary lest
the reputation and integrity of the service be prejudiced. Under Section 46, Rule 10 of the
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, serious dishonesty and grave
misconduct, among others, are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service.
As to Eugenio, the OCA justifiably pointed out that her evident intention in testifying in the
investigation of Resurreccion was to refute the charge that he had been the one who had
conducted the ex parte hearing on February 26, 1997 despite his being not qualified to do
so.26 It was quite obvious that she wanted to give the impression that it was physically
impossible for Resurreccion to demand the commissioner's fee from Atty. Pulgar if a
different person had received the evidence ex parte. Such thinly veiled attempt to mislead
the investigator in the quest for the truth during the administrative hearings constituted
simple dishonesty nonetheless, considering that Judge Guerrero's clear judicial vision still
saw through the attempt in order to reach the most logical conclusion that:
x x x As is the practice and being the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Mr. Resurreccion was
allowed to receive the evidence of the petitioner while the Court was busy hearing other
cases ready for trial. Since Mr. Resurreccion, being also the Court Interpreter, was needed
in the courtroom, he had to call Ms. Gina Bucayon, the Acting Clerk of Court, who is
also not a lawyer, to attend to theex-parte proceedings. This is probably the reason
why Ms. Bucayon's handwritings appeared in the minutes of February 26, 1997 and
why Mr. Resurreccion claimed that he did not know Atty. Pulgar as he had not met
him. As was the practice, Atty. Pulgar could have given the fee for the ex-parte to Mr.
Resurreccion through Ms. Bucayon. Then, Mr. Oswaldo Serdon went to the court
office and delivered the balance of the ex-parte proceedings but which failed to
reach Mr. Resurreccion as he had just left it on the table, x x x.27
Simple dishonesty is categorized as a less grave offense, and is punishable by suspension
of one month and one day to six months for the first offense; six months and one day to
one year for the second offense; or dismissal for the second offense. In Santiago v.
Jovellanos.28 we meted suspension of four months with a warning to a branch clerk of court
of the MTC in Pangasinan for her false testimony. In the case of Eugenio, we should
suspend her from the service without pay for six months, a penalty that the Court hopes
will quickly bring her to realize the seriousness of her offense. Although this is not her first
administrative case, she being already held administratively liable for simple neglect of
duty and meted a fine of P5,000.00 for not transcribing her stenographic notes in relation
to habeas corpus proceedings,29 such previous case is not a factor here because of the
dissimilarity of the offenses. Even so, she has to be warned to be more prudent in her
actuations
as
an
employee
of
the
Judiciary.
WHEREFORE,

the

Court:

1. FINDS AND PRONOUNCES Court Interpreter PAUL M. RESURRECCION of Branch

276, Regional Trial Court, in Muntinlupa City GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT;

and DISMISSES him from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave
credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations;chanrobleslaw

3. ORDERS Court Interpreter PAUL M. RESURRECCION to RESTITUTE to Atty.

Frumencio E. Pulgar within 30 days from his receipt of this decision the amount of
P5,000.00.

2. DECLARES Court Stenographer MARICAR EUGENIO of Branch 276, Regional Trial

Court, in Muntinlupa City GUILTY of SIMPLE DISHONESTY; and SUSPENDS her from
the service for six months without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar
act
shall
be
dealt
with
more
severely;
and

This

decision

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

is IMMEDIATELY

EXECUTORY.