The Supreme Court ruled that receiving money from bondsmen by a court employee, regardless of intent, constitutes grave misconduct, undermining the integrity of the judiciary. Almira L. Roxas, a Clerk III, was found guilty for accepting gratuities, a violation of the ethical standards expected of court personnel. This decision underscores the judiciary’s strict stance against any action that could compromise impartiality and public trust.

Token of Gratitude or Ethical Breach? When Common Practice Conflicts with Judicial Integrity

This case began with an administrative complaint filed by Almira L. Roxas against Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez, alleging oppression and grave abuse of authority. Judge Perez responded with a counter-complaint, accusing Roxas of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of anti-graft laws due to her admission of receiving money from bondsmen. While Roxas claimed this was a common practice and the funds were for office use, Judge Perez argued it constituted corruption and warranted her dismissal. The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on whether Roxas’ actions, even if part of a purported common practice, violated the ethical standards expected of judiciary employees.

The Court emphasized the high standard of moral righteousness and uprightness demanded of all those working in the Judiciary, referencing Judge Domingo-Regala v. Sultan, 492 Phil. 482, 490-491 (2005):

no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than the Judiciary. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.

The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel explicitly prohibits soliciting or accepting gifts or favors that could influence official actions. Section 2, Canon I states 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.” This prohibition is further reinforced in Section 2 (e), Canon III, which disallows soliciting or accepting any gratuity that could reasonably be seen as an attempt to influence their duties. These provisions set a clear boundary, aiming to prevent any perception of bias or corruption within the judicial system.

Roxas admitted to receiving money from bondsmen. In her own words:

One of the sources of the said fund is the little consideration that the bondsman was giving as a token of gratitude for allowing him to facilitate the posting of bail in Branch 67. Everybody in the office knew about it…I admitted having occasionally received those small amounts from the bondsman that inadvertently failed to remit to the common fund.

Despite her claim that the money was intended for a common fund, the Supreme Court found this admission to be a clear violation of ethical standards. The Court referenced Cabauatan v. Uvero, A.M. No. P-15-3329, November 6, 2017, to condemn the defense of “common practice”.

But what aggravates the misconduct is that Uvero, in an effort to exonerate himself, asserted that it is “common knowledge and practice” for party-litigants to give gifts as “tokens” of appreciation to government lawyers. Such statement from a court employee deserves condemnation as the Court would never tolerate any whiff of impropriety much less corruption.

The Court made it clear that even if the money was not intended for Roxas personally, the mere act of receiving it from litigants was unacceptable. In Villahermosa, Sr. v. Sarcia, et al., 726 Phil. 408, 416 (2014), the Supreme Court emphasized that “The sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, is antithesis to being a court employee.” This uncompromising stance underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining impartiality and public trust.

The Court further elaborated on the nature of grave misconduct, citing Ramos vs. Limeta, 650 Phil. 243, 248-249 (2010):

grave misconduct is defined as a serious transgression of some established and definite rule of action (such as unlawful behavior or gross negligence. by the public. officer or employee) that tends to threaten the very existence of the system of administration of justice an official or employee serves. It may manifest itself in corruption, or in other similar acts, done with the clear intent to violate the law or in flagrant disregard of established rules.

The Court acknowledged various explanations offered by court employees for receiving money, but consistently rejected them as defenses. Good intentions or claims of voluntariness do not excuse the misconduct. As the Court stated in Cabauatan v. Uvero, there is no valid defense for receiving money from party-litigants. This uncompromising position sends a strong message that any such act constitutes grave misconduct and warrants severe penalties.

The penalty for grave misconduct is dismissal from service for the first offense. However, since Roxas had already been dropped from the rolls for being absent without leave (AWOL), the Court could not impose dismissal. Instead, the Court ordered the forfeiture of her retirement and other benefits (except accrued leave credits) and her perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality.

The Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of maintaining high ethical standards within the judiciary. Employees must avoid conflicts of interest and refrain from accepting any form of remuneration that could compromise their impartiality. By strictly enforcing these standards, the Court aims to preserve public faith in the justice system and ensure that all judicial proceedings are conducted with integrity and fairness.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Almira L. Roxas’ act of receiving money from bondsmen, even if considered a common practice and purportedly for a common fund, constituted grave misconduct. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that it did.
What is grave misconduct?	Grave misconduct is a serious transgression of established rules that threatens the administration of justice. It includes acts of corruption or blatant disregard for established rules, as defined in Ramos vs. Limeta.
Why is receiving money from litigants considered grave misconduct?	Receiving money from litigants creates a perception of bias and undermines the impartiality of the judiciary. It violates the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which prohibits accepting gifts or favors that could influence official actions.
Is it a valid defense to claim that receiving money from litigants is a “common practice”?	No, the Supreme Court has explicitly condemned the defense of “common practice” as an attempt to excuse unethical behavior. The Court maintains that it will not tolerate any appearance of impropriety or corruption within the judiciary.
What penalties are imposed for grave misconduct?	The standard penalty for grave misconduct is dismissal from service for the first offense. This penalty carries with it the cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.
What happened to Almira L. Roxas in this case?	Although Roxas was already dropped from the rolls for being AWOL, the Supreme Court ordered the forfeiture of her retirement and other benefits (except accrued leave credits) and her perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality.
What is the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel?	The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel sets forth the ethical standards expected of all employees within the judiciary. It aims to prevent conflicts of interest, maintain impartiality, and ensure public trust in the justice system.
Can court employees accept “tokens of gratitude” from litigants?	No, court employees are prohibited from accepting any gifts, favors, or gratuities that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence their official duties. The Supreme Court views such acts as a violation of ethical standards and a threat to the integrity of the judiciary.
What is the significance of this Supreme Court decision?	The decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding high ethical standards and preventing corruption. It sends a clear message that any act that compromises impartiality and public trust will be met with severe consequences.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case serves as a stark reminder to all judiciary employees of their duty to maintain the highest ethical standards. By strictly prohibiting the acceptance of gratuities and other compromising actions, the Court seeks to safeguard the integrity of the justice system and preserve public confidence in its fairness and impartiality.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HON. DENNIS PATRICK Z. PEREZ V. ALMIRA L. ROXAS, A.M. No. P-16-3595, June 26, 2018