ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
EN BANC
[A.M. No. P-96-1221. June 19, 1997]
JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City, Complainant, vs. PABLO C. GERNALE, JR., Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This is an administrative case filed against Deputy Sheriff Pablo C. Gernale, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, of Caloocan City for direct bribery and grave misconduct. The complaint was filed by Judge Adoracion G. Angeles of the same court, recommending the dismissal of respondent from the service.
The charge of direct bribery stemmed from respondents service of
a writ of preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. C-16305, entitled Asian
Footwear and Rubber Corporation vs. Angelito Daniel, doing business under the
name and style of
Litos formerly
Anrizzdon Gallery, of the court where both parties worked.
The case was the subject of a compromise agreement
which provided:1chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3.
Defendant agrees to
reimburse Plaintiff expenses for the litigation such as Filing Fee in the sum
of P465.00, Insurance Premium for Attachment Bond in the sum of P1,039.58,
Sheriff Services in serving attachment in the sum of P3,000.00
and Attorneys Fees of P2,000.00; (Emphasis added)
At the hearing of the case on September 29, 1995, during which
the compromise agreement was submitted for approval of the court, Judge Angeles
was told by counsel for defendant, Atty. Renato Mercado, and by the
representative of the
plaintiff, Noli
Latoga, that respondent sheriff had demanded P5,000.00 (which he later
reduced to P3,000.00) from Latoga to facilitate the service of the
writ of attachment in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.2
Latoga gave respondent sheriff P3,000.00,
in addition to shouldering the expenses for food, transportation, and hotel
accommodations, as he and his counsel accompanied respondent to Nueva Vizcaya
to serve the writ of preliminary attachment.
Respondent admitted receipt of P3,000.00 from Latoga but
claimed that it had been voluntarily given to him. Upon Judge Angeles directive, respondent returned the money to
Latoga in two installments of P1,772.003 and P1,228.00.4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The charge of gross misconduct, on the other hand, arose from
respondents behavior during the Christmas party held on December 21, 1995 by
employees of the court.
According to
Judge Angeles, at around 3:30 in the afternoon, respondent arrived drunk and
noisy, causing unease among the staff members and fear among their children;
that when she (Judge Angeles) asked respondent to behave himself, respondent
dared her to sue him and shouted that he was not afraid of her; and that the
party had to stop as respondent could not be made to quiet down and leave.
Judge Angeles issued an order finding
respondent guilty of direct contempt and ordered him imprisoned for one day and
to pay a fine of P10.00.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In his comment dated April 15, 1996, respondent sheriff admitted
receipt of
P3,000.00 from Noli
Latoga but claimed that the money was given to him as a token of appreciation
for going out of his way to serve the writ of attachment in the province,
leaving his family for this purpose for two (2) days; and that he himself told
Latoga that he (Latoga) had no obligation to pay him (respondent) for his
services, and that is why he readily agreed to return the money when told to do
so by Judge Angeles.
As for his alleged
misconduct during the Christmas party, respondent claimed that he made fun and
clowned [and] yes was a little noisy but did so only to liven up and otherwise
dreary party; that when Judge Angeles came out of her chambers and ordered
every body to keep quiet, he mustered the courage to tell Judge Angeles to
lighten up and forget for the moment that she was a judge and, in the spirit of
Christmas, join in the fun;
that Judge
Angeles resented this and even at a time when peace, goodwill to all men,
forgiveness, joy, love should be the theme had him jailed for direct contempt
which caused alarm to his family because he failed to come home that day; that
it was Judge Angeles actuations which in fact disrupted and untimely ended the
Christmas party; that he could not have possibly committed the acts imputed to
him since he not only respects but fears Judge Angeles; and that since he had
become deputy sheriff in November, 1984 he had had an unblemished record of
service.
In reply, Judge Angeles pointed out that it was the duty of
respondent to serve the writ of preliminary attachment and he should not accept
money from any of the parties; that in fact respondent did not have to undertake
the trip to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya because he could just have requested the
court to indorse the writ of attachment to the sheriff of that place, but
respondent wanted to have an excuse to ask for money; that respondent violated
P.D. No. 46 which prohibits public officials from receiving gifts on any
occasion, including Christmas; and that respondents defiance of her
during
the Christmas party was probably
due to his resentment at being ordered by her to return the P3,000.00.
In rejoinder, respondent alleged that it was unfair for Judge Angeles to claim that it was monetary consideration which motivated him to go to Nueva Vizcaya because it was she who had ordered him to implement the writ.
This case was referred to Executive Judge Bayani S. Rivera of the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
Finding no significant
issues of fact involved, Judge Rivera dispensed with hearing and required
Judge Angeles and respondent to submit their memoranda.
On November 26, 1996, Judge Rivera submitted
his report, recommending that respondent be fined P3,000.00, with
warning that repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely
for accepting P3,000.00 from Noli Latoga. Judge Rivera thought it sufficient comeuppance for
respondents behavior at the Christmas party that he was jailed for one day and
fined P10.00.
Respondent maintains that the P3,000.00 which he received
from plaintiffs representative, Noli Latoga, was given to him as a token of
appreciation.
The fact remains,
however, that plaintiff later tried to pass the expense on to the defendant in
the parties compromise agreement in Civil Case No. C-16305.
If Latoga had given the amount simply as a
token of gratitude for respondents services, it was unlikely that he would
try to recover it as an expense of litigation.
Besides, the amount of P3,000.00 is no trifling amount.
As the investigating Judge points out, it is
roughly half the month salary of P6,604.00 of respondent and, as such,
cannot be considered a token.
If this
amount had not been ordered returned by Judge Angeles, it is very likely
plaintiff in the case would have insisted on its payment by defendant as
provided in their compromise agreement.
It is hardly necessary to say that the conduct and behavior of those connected in one way or another with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the sheriff and the deputy sheriff to the lowliest clerk, should at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum and must, above all, be above suspicion.6 Respondent is guilty of soliciting money from a party to a case in violation of Rule XIV, Sec. 23(k) of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and, in accordance with that provision and the applicable rulings,7 he should be dismissed from the service.
Anent the charge of gross misconduct, misbehavior, and disrespect towards Judge Angeles, the Court disagrees with the investigating judges conclusion that the fact of respondent being incarcerated and having been made to pay a fine for direct contempt already constituted sufficient comeuppance. Disciplinary proceedings must be distinguished from contempt proceedings under Rule 71, since they involve different and separate procedures.8 The penalty for one cannot take the place of the other.
Respondent denies the charge of gross misconduct. It is noteworthy that he does not deny that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the incident. It cannot therefore be that Judge Angeles strongly reacted to his behavior by ordering him jailed for contempt because the Judge is so humorless or takes herself so seriously that she took offense at what respondent did when the fact is that it was all in the spirit of the occasion that respondent did so. Respondent thus deserves to be disciplined for his behavior.
Be that as it may, even though respondent already serve sentence for contempt and although respondents behavior was censurable, we do not think Judge Adoracion was justified in treating respondents act as contempt of court. The fact is that what was disrupted was not a judicial proceeding but a Christmas party. Judge Angeles was entitled to respondents respect even if it was a Christmas party in which she was present. But to consider respondents breach of propriety and decorum contempt of court would be to lose sight of the fact that essentially the power to cite for contempt is to be exercised strictly for the preservation of the dignity of the court and its proceedings. As held in Buyco vs. Zosa,9 a judge should always bear in mind that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are not personal, because that power is intended as a safeguard, not for judges as persons, but for the functions that they exercise.
WHEREFORE, respondent Deputy Sheriff Pablo C. Gernale, Jr. is DISMISSED from the service for improper solicitation and grave misconduct with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on leave.
Endnotes:
1 Complaint, Annex A; Rollo, p.7.
2 Pursuant to Rule 141, Sec. 7, sheriffs expenses in servicing court processes are approved by the court and paid by the interested party to the clerk of court.
3 Per acknowledgment receipt dated October 6, 1995; Rollo, p. 12.
4 Per acknowledgment receipt dated October 10, 1995; Id., p.13.
5 Complaint, Annex G; Id., p.15.
6 Llanes v. Borja, 192 SCRA 288 (1990).
7 See Lim v. Guasch, 223 SCRA 726 (1993); Lacuata v. Bautista, 235 SCRA 290 (1994); Padilla v. Arabia, 242 SCRA 227 (1995).
8 Zabala v. Judge Dictado, A.M. No. RTJ-89-375, March 6, 1990, En Banc Minute Resolution; Balasabas v. Aquilizan, 106 SCRA 489 (1981).
9 145 Phil. 663, 680 (1970); Austria v. Masaquel, 20 SCRA 1247, 1260 (1967).