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 C…

Angeles versus Gernale

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Judge Adoracion G. Angeles of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, against Pablo C. Gernale, Junior, the deputy sheriff assigned to her own branch, charging him with direct bribery and grave misconduct. The judge asked that the respondent be dismissed from the service. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of every person connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge down to the deputy sheriff, and treats the solicitation of money from a litigant as a dismissal offense. Second, it draws a clean line between disciplinary proceedings and contempt proceedings, and reminds judges that the power to punish for contempt exists to protect the dignity of the court and its proceedings, not the personal feelings of the judge.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court by Judge Angeles, and the Court treated it as an administrative matter against a subordinate judicial employee. The Court referred the case 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, the investigating judge dispensed with a hearing and required the parties to submit their memoranda. He then submitted his report recommending that the respondent be fined 3,000 pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely, for accepting 3,000 pesos from the plaintiff's representative. He also thought it sufficient comeuppance for the respondent's behavior at the Christmas party that he had been jailed for one day and fined 10 pesos for direct contempt. The case then came before the Supreme Court En Banc, which decided it per curiam.

Facts

The bribery charge arose from the service of a writ of preliminary attachment in a civil case for a sum of money, a case pending in the very court where both the complainant and the respondent worked. The parties to that case entered into a compromise agreement, and the agreement itself listed sheriff services in serving the attachment in the sum of 3,000 pesos among the litigation expenses that the defendant agreed to reimburse to the plaintiff. At the hearing on September 29, 1995, when the compromise agreement was submitted for approval, counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff's representative, Noli Latoga, told Judge Angeles that the respondent sheriff had demanded 5,000 pesos, later reduced to 3,000 pesos, from Latoga to facilitate the service of the writ of attachment in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Latoga gave the respondent 3,000 pesos, on top of shouldering the expenses for food, transportation, and hotel accommodations, as he and his counsel accompanied the respondent to Nueva Vizcaya to serve the writ. The respondent admitted receiving the 3,000 pesos but claimed it was voluntarily given as a token of appreciation. Upon the judge's directive, he returned the money in two installments.

The gross misconduct charge arose from the court's Christmas party on December 21, 1995. According to Judge Angeles, the respondent arrived drunk and noisy at around half past three in the afternoon, causing unease among the staff and fear among their children. When she asked him to behave, he dared her to sue him and shouted that he was not afraid of her, and the party had to stop because he could not be made to quiet down and leave. Judge Angeles issued an order finding him guilty of direct contempt, and he was imprisoned for one day and fined 10 pesos.

In his comment, the respondent admitted the drinking and conceded that he made fun, clowned, and was a little noisy, but claimed he did so only to liven up an otherwise dreary party, and that it was the judge's actuations which disrupted the celebration. He insisted that he not only respects but fears Judge Angeles, and that he had an unblemished record since becoming deputy sheriff in November 1984. In reply, Judge Angeles pointed out that serving the writ was his duty, that he need not have traveled to Nueva Vizcaya at all since he could have asked the court to indorse the writ to the sheriff of that place, and that he violated the law prohibiting public officials from receiving gifts on any occasion, including Christmas.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent deputy sheriff is guilty of soliciting money from a party to a case, warranting dismissal from the service.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct for his behavior at the Christmas party, despite having already been punished for direct contempt arising from the same incident.
• Whether or not the contempt proceeding and the administrative disciplinary proceeding are separate, such that the penalty in one cannot take the place of the penalty in the other.

Applicable Provisions

Section 23, paragraph k, of Rule Fourteen of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules provides:

Directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting, or causing the solicitation or acceptance of any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person where such gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or other thing of monetary value is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor or service, or where the same is given in consideration of the performance of an act which the public officer or employee is required to perform, is prohibited.

This is the provision the Court holds the respondent violated when he took money from a litigant for serving a writ that was his duty to serve.

Rule 71 of the Rules of Court governs contempt, and the Court cites it to distinguish contempt from administrative discipline. The Court's reasoning rests on the purpose of the contempt power, which it states through the doctrine of Buyco versus Zosa: 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.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent guilty of soliciting money from a party to a case. It rejected the claim that the 3,000 pesos was a token of appreciation, reasoning that the plaintiff later tried to pass the expense on to the defendant in the compromise agreement, which it would not have done had the money been a mere token of gratitude. The Court also noted that 3,000 pesos was no trifling amount, being roughly half the respondent's monthly salary of 6,604 pesos. The Court laid down the governing standard in these words:

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.

On the second and third issues, the Court disagreed with the investigating judge that the one day of imprisonment and the 10 peso 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, and the penalty for one cannot take the place of the other. The respondent did not deny being under the influence of liquor, and the Court held that he deserves to be disciplined for his behavior.

At the same time, the Court held that Judge Angeles was not justified in treating the respondent's act as contempt of court, because what was disrupted was not a judicial proceeding but a Christmas party. The power to cite for contempt is to be exercised strictly for the preservation of the dignity of the court and its proceedings, and to hold otherwise would lose sight of that purpose.

Doctrine

First, every person connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the sheriff and the deputy sheriff to the lowliest clerk, must at all times conduct himself with propriety and decorum and must be above suspicion. Second, a public officer or employee who directly or indirectly solicits or accepts a gift or anything of monetary value in consideration of the performance of an act which he is required to perform violates Section 23, paragraph k, of Rule Fourteen of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules, and the proper penalty is dismissal from the service. Third, disciplinary proceedings are separate and distinct from contempt proceedings under Rule 71, and the penalty imposed in one cannot substitute for the penalty in the other. Fourth, the power to punish for contempt is intended as a safeguard, not for judges as persons, but for the functions that they exercise, and must be exercised strictly for the preservation of the dignity of the court and its proceedings.

Disposition

The Court dismissed Deputy Sheriff Pablo C. Gernale, Junior, 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.

Remember This

Memorize the line that those connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must at all times be above suspicion. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between contempt and administrative discipline, and to test whether you know that the contempt power protects the functions of the court, not the person of the judge.