IMELDA BAUTISTA-RAMOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. NERIO B. PEDROCHE, INTERPRETER I, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, STA. IGNACIA-MAYANTOC-SAN CLEMENTE-SAN JOSE, TARLAC, RESPONDENT.

Bautista-Ramos versus Pedroche

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Imelda Bautista-Ramos, a public school teacher who served as chairperson of the board of election inspectors, against Nerio B. Pedroche, an Interpreter I of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Ignacia, Mayantoc, San Clemente, and San Jose in Tarlac. The complainant charged the respondent with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming a court employee, arising from his actuations in connection with an election case filed against her by a voter named Pepito Biato Montalbo. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of the standard of conduct demanded of judicial employees: that they must be above suspicion at all times, and that even well-meant assistance to a litigant, coupled with loose talk about money and a note written on a summons, can amount to misconduct punishable by fine.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court as an administrative matter against a lower court employee. In a resolution dated July 3, 2000, the Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Afable E. Cajigal of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Camiling, Tarlac, for investigation, report, and recommendation. Judge Cajigal submitted his report dated December 7, 2000, finding that the charges of urging the election case and of demanding money were unsubstantiated, but that the respondent had shown undue interest in the case and had threatened the complainant, and recommended a stern warning for a first offense. The Office of the Court Administrator, in a memorandum dated June 4, 2001, agreed with the findings but recommended a fine of 2,000 pesos instead of a warning. The matter then came before the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

During the 1998 elections, the complainant was chairperson of the board of election inspectors of a precinct in Poblacion East, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac. Pepito Biato Montalbo, a registered voter of that precinct, complained that he was not allowed to vote; the complainant replied that the records showed he had already voted and could not vote twice. While they were discussing the matter, the respondent appeared, identified himself as a court employee, claimed he knew the law, insisted that Montalbo be allowed to vote, and threatened the complainant with a lawsuit if she refused.

On May 15, 1998, Montalbo filed an election case against the complainant before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. When the complainant learned of the complaint, she approached the respondent, who instructed her to go to his house. On May 20, 1998, she went there accompanied by Manuela Pedroche, her husband Augusto Ramos, and Manuela's husband Bong Pedroche. The respondent allegedly demanded "50" to settle the case; thinking he meant 50 pesos, the group gave him 250 pesos, but he corrected them and said he was asking for 50,000 pesos. He claimed influence in court, told Montalbo not to settle lest he also be charged, threatened the complainant with dismissal from the service and forfeiture of benefits, and wrote a note on the summons asking for a resetting of the case on the ground that the parties were amenable to settlement. At the hearing on May 22, 1998, Montalbo appeared without counsel and said the respondent had prepared his petition.

The respondent denied any wrongdoing. He claimed he helped Montalbo only out of compassion, as a concerned voter and not as a government employee, and that it was a lawyer from the Public Attorney's Office who prepared the petition filed in court. He claimed he was at the hospital watching over his wife on May 20, 1998, and that he wrote the note on the summons only because the complainant was insistent. He denied asking for money, saying it was Montalbo who was asking for money and that he mentioned certain amounts only by way of example. He later learned that the complainant was spreading the story that he was asking for 50,000 pesos, and he sent her a letter demanding that she desist and publicly apologize.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent demanded money from the complainant in exchange for the settlement of the election case.
• Whether or not the respondent prepared the petition filed by Montalbo in the election case.
• Whether or not the respondent's actuations, even absent a demand for money, constituted misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Whether or not the penalty of fine, rather than a warning, is the proper penalty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it rests on the settled administrative standard for employees of the judiciary, which the Court states as follows:

Employees of the judiciary must at all times be above suspicion.

This standard bears on the case because it is the measure against which the respondent's conduct, including his note on the summons and his mention of amounts of money, was judged.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence that the respondent was asking for money directly from the complainant. The testimony of Brigido Pedroche showed that it was actually Montalbo who was asking for money to settle the case but could not decide how much, and that the respondent mentioned certain amounts only by way of example. When the complainant's husband offered Montalbo money, the respondent declared that he was not interested in the money. The Court also noted that the respondent promptly sent the complainant a letter denying any participation in the petition and asking her to desist from spreading the story that he was asking for money.

On the second issue, the Court held that it was clear from the records that it was not the respondent but a certain Atty. Domingo R. Joaquin of the Public Attorney's Office who prepared the petition. Since the respondent had prepared a handwritten protest on the day of the election, Montalbo was evidently confused as to which document the court was referring to.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent's acts nonetheless created an impression in the complainant's mind that he was exerting some degree of influence in extending help to Montalbo. This was plausible since he wrote a note on the summons, addressed to the clerk of court, asking that the case be reset. The Court asked: if he knew the clerk of court would not act on his note, why write the note at all? He could have been steadfast in his refusal to get involved. Likewise, his mention of certain amounts of money, even if made only to provide an illustrative example, gave the impression that cases could be settled by the mere expedient of paying the complainant. Such an impression could be damaging to the public service and the good image of the judiciary. The Court reminded those involved in the administration of justice to conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach, since their office is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that a fine was called for, but held that this being the respondent's first offense, and granting that he was prompted by no base motive, a fine of 1,000 pesos would suffice.

Doctrine

Employees of the judiciary must at all times be above suspicion and must conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach. The desire to help needy people without thought of material reward is commendable, and even more so when the person extending assistance is a public servant; but a court employee must be circumspect in his dealings with litigants, and acts that create the impression that he is exerting influence in a case, such as writing a note on a summons asking for a resetting, or mentioning amounts of money even only by way of example, constitute misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Absence of a direct demand for money does not exonerate; the test is the impression created on the public and the damage to the good image of the judiciary.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, fined him 1,000 pesos, and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line: employees of the judiciary must at all times be above suspicion. Examiners use this case to test the standard of conduct of judicial employees and the principle that even well-meant assistance to a litigant, coupled with loose talk about money and a note on a summons, is punishable misconduct.