RE: CRIMINAL CASE NO. MC-02-5637 AGAINST ARTURO V. PERALTA AND LARRY C. DE GUZMAN, BOTH EMPLOYEES OF METC, BRANCH 31, QUEZON CITY.

Re: Criminal Case against Peralta and De Guzman

The Case

This is an administrative matter brought by the Supreme Court itself against two employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 31, Quezon City: Arturo Peralta, a Deputy Sheriff, and Larry De Guzman, the Branch Clerk of Court. The Office of the Court Administrator received a copy of a criminal information for robbery through extortion filed against them by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, arising from an entrapment operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation. The Court treated the criminal charge as a serious administrative offense and disciplined both men. The case matters because it shows how the Court weighs evidence in administrative proceedings, how it treats a respondent's silence, and how it applies the doctrine of unity of purpose to hold two public officers liable for one act of extortion.

Procedural History

The criminal information for robbery through extortion was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, and a copy of the information and its supporting documents reached the Office of the Court Administrator. Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock recommended that both men be directed to comment, that the matter be redocketed as a regular administrative matter, and that they be suspended pending the criminal case. The Supreme Court adopted that recommendation in a Resolution issued in March 2003.

Peralta filed his comment; De Guzman filed none. The Court then referred the matter to Executive Judge Natividad Dizon of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for investigation, report, and recommendation. Judge Dizon found De Guzman liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty and recommended his dismissal, but found the evidence against Peralta insufficient and recommended dismissal of the administrative case against him. Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco, Junior adopted those findings. The Court resolved the matter in this per curiam decision, disagreeing in part with the investigating judge and the Court Administrator.

Facts

Christy Gonzales filed a civil case for replevin against Police Officer 3 Hernani Aga and his wife, Doctor Ma. Perlita Aga, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 215. A writ of replevin issued, and sheriff Arturo Peralta served it and took possession of a Mitsubishi Galant sedan. The spouses Aga then moved for the return of the car with a counter replevin bond, and in July 2002 the trial court ordered Peralta to recover the vehicle from Gonzales and return it to the spouses Aga.

On July 23, 2002, Aga presented the resolution to Peralta for implementation. Peralta and a certain Larry then demanded five thousand pesos from him. Aga agreed, and the payoff was set for two o'clock in the afternoon of the next day at a Jollibee outlet on Shaw Boulevard in Mandaluyong City. Aga reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation, which dusted five one hundred peso bills with fluorescent powder and prepared an entrapment operation.

Peralta and Larry arrived at the meeting place, and the group proceeded to the house of Christy Gonzales, who was not there. Peralta and Larry then told Aga that they would take care of getting the vehicle and asked him to give them the money. Aga handed half of the marked money to Larry and half to Peralta, and the NBI operatives moved in and arrested them. Larry turned out to be Larry De Guzman, the Branch Clerk of Court. On ultraviolet examination, only De Guzman tested positive for fluorescent powder; Peralta tested negative.

Issues

• Whether or not Branch Clerk of Court Larry De Guzman is administratively liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty for joining the sheriff in the execution of a court process and accepting marked money from a litigant.
• Whether or not Deputy Sheriff Arturo Peralta is administratively liable despite testing negative for fluorescent powder.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal is proper for both respondents.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Section 52. Classification of Offenses. A. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, based on the gravity of its commission and the degree of damage or injury caused to the government or to the public in general. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: x x x. Dishonesty. Grave Misconduct.

This provision classifies dishonesty and serious misconduct as grave offenses, which is why the Court imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal.

The Court also relied on the principle that public office is a public trust, and on its consistent holding that employees of the judiciary must be living examples of uprightness in both their official duties and their private dealings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held De Guzman liable. His failure to file the required comment was a disregard of the duty of every employee in the judiciary to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay. The Court reasoned that it is against human nature to remain silent in the face of accusations, and concluded that he impliedly admitted the charges. The assigned task of a special sheriff is not within the scope of a Branch Clerk of Court's duties; he should have remained in his office attending to his functions. Instead, he went out with the sheriff, was caught in the entrapment, and tested positive for fluorescent powder.

On the second issue, the Court reversed the investigating judge and the Court Administrator as to Peralta. Even assuming he tested negative for fluorescent powder, he could not evade liability. As the special sheriff, he was the central figure in the operation. He and De Guzman were together in implementing the resolution, which showed that they had a prior understanding or agreement on what action to take. In the Court's words, they had a unity of purpose or design, and the liability of one is the liability of both.

On the third issue, the Court defined the offenses and imposed dismissal. Serious misconduct is conduct that affects a public officer's performance of his duties as such officer, and it must be serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. Dishonesty is a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity. Receiving marked money from a litigant in exchange for the execution of a writ is, by any standard, serious misconduct and dishonesty.

Doctrine

First, a respondent's failure to file a required comment in an administrative case is a disregard of the Court's orders and may be taken as an implied admission of the charges. Second, the doctrine of unity of purpose or design applies where two public officers act together in a common undertaking: the liability of one is the liability of both, and a negative forensic result does not exonerate the officer who was the central figure in the operation. Third, serious misconduct must be serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling, and it is conduct that affects the officer's performance of his duties. Fourth, dishonesty and serious misconduct are grave offenses under Section 52, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by dismissal. Fifth, all those involved in the administration of justice must adhere to the principle that public office is a public trust.

Disposition

The Court found both Larry De Guzman and Arturo Peralta guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty, dismissed them from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and barred them from reemployment in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that where two court employees act with unity of purpose or design in extorting money from a litigant, the liability of one is the liability of both, and a negative fluorescent test will not save the sheriff who was the central figure. Examiners use this case on the doctrine of unity of purpose, on silence as implied admission, and on the classification of dishonesty and serious misconduct as grave offenses punishable by dismissal.