Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
PER
CURIAM:
The Court cannot overemphasize
the need for honesty and integrity on the part of all those who serve
in
the judiciary.[1]
Thus, all those in the service have continuously been exhorted to
behave
at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality
of the judiciary,[2]
and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.[3]
Arrogating to oneself judicial powers which one does not possess, in
order
to extort money from a party-litigant for securing a favorable judgment
is an ultimate betrayal of the duty to uphold the dignity and authority
of the judiciary, and should never be countenanced.[4]
In an affidavit-complaint[5]
dated July 2, 1996, Bernardino M. Fabian, Patricia M. Fabian, Marciano
B. Manansala, Jose B. Manansala, Jr., Erlinda Manansala, Carlos B.
Manansala
and Natividad Manansala-Acuña prayed that appropriate sanctions
be meted on Leila (a.k.a. Laila) M. Galo for alleged conduct unbecoming
a civil servant and for graft and corruption.chanrobles virtual law library
Complainants alleged
that they are the heirs of Querubina Manansala. They filed a case
against
Gertrudes Baltazar and Bartolome Lacap, Sr., which was docketed as
Civil
Case No. G-2134 with the RTC of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 51. While the
case was pending, respondent Galo, a legal researcher at the said
court,
approached them and offered to assist in the speedy resolution of their
case. Owing to the glibness of respondent, complainants were persuaded
to accept her offer.cralaw:red
On December 8, 1995,
respondent went to complainants’ residence and asked for P30,000.00 as
initial payment. She told them that P20,000.00 of said amount was
purportedly
for the judge while the remainder of P 10,000.00 was for the speedy
resolution
of the case. Respondent also asked for P300.00 for transportation
expenses
to arrange matters in the Supreme Court, because complainant’s land
case
was complicated. Complainants asked her for a receipt, but she merely
assured
them that she would take care of everything.cralaw:red
On December 14, 1995,
respondent asked Bernardino M. Fabian for another P 10,000.00 allegedly
to secure a favorable decision. Subsequently, on December 18, 1995,
respondent
again demanded P26,000.00 as payment for alleged contacts in the
Supreme
Court considering the complexity of their case. Since complainants did
not have that amount at the time, they were forced to give respondent
$1,000.00
which was sent to them by a relative working in Saudi Arabia.cralaw:red
On December 26, 1996,
respondent again demanded and was given P4,000.00 by Erlinda Manansala
purportedly as research fee. Later, on February 27, 1996, respondent
solicited
P7,500.00 from complainants to pay for the birthday gift of the
presiding
judge and reassured them of a favorable decision because everything had
been settled with the trial court and the Supreme Court.cralaw:red
Complainants further
averred that when no decision was rendered in their case, they were
constrained
to make inquiries with the trial court. There, they learned that
respondent
was not a legal researcher but a stenographer, and that she had
defrauded
other litigants in several courts in Guagua, Pampanga using the same
modus
operandi.cralaw:red
When complainants confronted
respondent, she haughtily told them that the money they gave her was
not
enough. She said complainants had to pay more because their case, which
involved land, was very complicated.chanrobles virtual law library
On May 10, 1996, complainants
went to respondent’s residence but they were unable to see her.
Instead,
they were handed a letter[6]
informing them that they will soon receive the favorable decision of
the
judge. Again, respondent asked for money from complainants, but they
refused
to give her any.chanrobles virtual law library
On June 7, 1996, respondent
sent complainants a letter[7]
informing them that the money spent for their case will be returned to
them on or before June 14, 1996, since she was no longer involved in
the
case.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent denied the
charges leveled against her and averred that she and the complainants
were
acquainted with each other because they were neighbors. She denied that
she represented herself to be a researcher in court because
complainants
knew she was merely a court stenographer. She likewise denied that she
received various sums of money from complainants in consideration of a
favorable judgment. She alleged that she provided assistance to
complainants
upon their request, and only to facilitate the procurement of copies of
the transcripts of stenographic notes. She thus prayed that the
complaint
be dismissed.cralaw:red
In a resolution dated
June 18, 1997, the court referred the case to Executive Judge Jose G.
Montemayor
of the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga for investigation
report
and recommendation.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
However, upon motion
of respondent, Judge Montemayor voluntarily inhibited himself from
investigating
the case.cralaw:red
On June 23, 1998,[9]
the investigation, report and recommendation of the case was referred
to
Judge Isagani M. Palad of Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of
Guagua,
Pampanga.chanrobles virtual law library
On November 12, 1998,[10]
Judge Palad submitted his report wherein he found respondent guilty as
charged and recommended her dismissal from the service. The Office of
the
Court Administrator, after evaluating Judge Palad’s findings and
recommendation,
adopted the same in toto.chanrobles virtual law library
The recommendation of
the OCA and Judge Palad is well-taken.cralaw:red
Respondent’s bare denial
cannot overcome the clear and categorical assertion of the complainants
that she demanded and received various sums of money on the promise
that
she would obtain a favorable judgment for them. The charge is
substantiated
by the two (2) handwritten Letters dated May 10, 1996[11]
and June 7, 1996[12]
signed by no less than respondent herself.cralaw:red
The conduct or behavior
of all officials and employees 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.[13]
Their conduct must, at all times be characterized by, among others,
strict
propriety and decorum in order to earn and maintain the respect of the
public for the judiciary.[14]
We will never countenance
such conduct, 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.[15]
As we held in Mendoza
v. Tiongson:[16]
[W]hat brings our judicial
system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring court
personnel
peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that
decisions
can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of
the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in
eradicating
the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever warranted by
the
gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an
administrative
case is meted to erring personnel.chanrobles virtual law library
We have been resolute
in our drive to discipline and, if warranted, to remove from the
service
errant magistrates, employees and even Justices of higher collegiate
appellate
courts[17]
for any infraction which tends to give the Judiciary a bad name. To
underscore
our earnestness in this pursuit, we have, in fact, been unflinching in
imposing discipline on errant personnel[18]
or in purging the ranks of those undeserving to remain in the service.[19]
We can do no less in this case.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
Leila M. Galo is found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and DISHONESTY, and
is
accordingly DISMISSED from the service, with prejudice to re-employment
in any government agency including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
Her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Re: Jovelita Olivas and Antonio Cuyco, A.M. No. CA-02-12-P, 2 May 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Torcende v. Judge Agustin T. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238, 24 January
2003, citing Resngit-Marquez v. Judge Victor T. Llamas, A.M. No.
RTJ-02-1708,
23 July 2002, citing Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
See Igoy v. Soriano, A.M. No. 2001-9-SC, 11 October 2001, 367 SCRA 70.
[5]
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 4.
[7]
Ibid., p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Rollo, Vol. II, p. 14.
[9]
Id., p. 24.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 88-90.
[11]
Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 4.
[12]
Ibid., p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Biag v. Gubatanga, 376 Phil. 870 [1999]; Gacho v. Fuentes, 353 Phil.
665
[1998]; OCA v. Alvarez, 350 Phil. 771 [1998].
[14]
Judge Amado S. Caguioa v. Crisanto Flora, 412 Phil. 426 [2001], citing
Alawi v. Alauya, 335 Phil. 1096 [1997]; Quiroz v. Orfila, 338 Phil. 828
[1997]; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Br. 82,
Odiongan,
Romblon, 354 Phil. 1 [1998], citing Orfila v. Quiroz, supra.
[15]
Mendoza v. Mabutas, A.M. No. MTJ-88-142, 17 June 1993, 223 SCRA 411,
citing
Sy v. Academia, A.M. No. P-99-1317, 3 July 1991, 198 SCRA 705.
[16]
333 Phil. 508 [1996].chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
See In re: Derogatory News Items Charging Court of Appeals Associate
Justice
Demetrio Demetria with Interference on Behalf of a Suspected Drug
Queen,
A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, 27 March 2001, 355 SCRA 366; In the Matter of the
Alleged Improper Conduct of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto D.
Badoy, Jr., Taking An Ambulance But Proceeding To The GMA TV Station
For
An Interview Instead of Proceeding Forthwith To The Hospital, A.M. Nos.
01-12-01-SC and SB-02-10-J, 16 January 2003; Canson v. Garchitorena,
370
Phil. 287 [1999].
[18]
Re: Report on the Unauthorized Use by Bernardo S. Ditan, an Employee of
this Court of the Lite Ace with Plate No. SEA - 746, A.M. No. 02-09-SC,
25 July 2002; Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Antonio
Macalintal,
Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, A.M. No. 99-11-06-SC, 15
February 2000.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Igoy v. Soriano, A.M. No. 2001-9-SC, 11 October 2001, 367 SCRA 70; Re
Report
On The Series of Thefts and Robberies in the Premises of the Supreme
court,
A.M. No. 02-10-05-SC, 3 February 2003.
chan
robles virtual law library