ARLENE L. AMBROSIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. SOLMINIO B. DELAS ARMAS, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 265, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.

Ambrosio versus Delas Armas

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Arlene L. Ambrosio against Sheriff Solminio B. Delas Armas, Sheriff IV of Branch 265 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, for oppression, dishonesty, grave misconduct, harassment, and unethical conduct in violation of Republic Act Number 6713 in relation to Republic Act Number 3019. The complainant is a party-litigant in a civil case pending before the very branch where the respondent served as sheriff. The case matters because it fixes the Court's uncompromising stance on court personnel who solicit money from litigants, and it shows how the Court classifies such solicitation as grave misconduct punishable by dismissal even on a first offense.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed on May 23, 2012. In a Resolution dated February 10, 2014, the administrative matter was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City for investigation, report, and recommendation. Investigating Judge Danilo S. Cruz recommended that the respondent be found guilty only of simple misconduct and be meted suspension for one month without salary, with a stern warning, noting that the respondent had been in the service for twenty-four years and that this was his first offense. On February 28, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator passed a Memorandum finding the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and recommending dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government. The case was then transmitted to the Supreme Court for review, and the Court resolved it in a per curiam decision.

Facts

The complainant had filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default in a civil case pending before Branch 265 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, where the respondent was the branch sheriff. That motion was denied in an Order dated February 16, 2012. Copies of the Order were sent to the parties and their counsel by registered mail on March 2, 2012, and the complainant received her copy on March 8, 2012. But before the Order was even mailed, in the afternoon of February 29, 2012, the respondent contacted the complainant's husband, Cesar Ambrosio, by cellular phone and text messages, telling him to come to the office because the matter was important and concerned their case. The respondent even told Cesar to hurry, saying that the order denying the motion might already be mailed, and that he had asked the officer in charge to hold the mailing.

The next day, Cesar, accompanied by his friend Cyril Manaoag, went to Branch 265. The respondent showed them the Order denying the motion. When Cesar said he would simply accept the Order although aggrieved, the respondent asked whether he was really agreeable to the denial. They then spoke privately, and the respondent offered to help by persuading the officer in charge and the judge to grant the motion, but said there would be some expenses, mentioning ten thousand pesos or perhaps five thousand pesos. Cesar said he could perhaps manage five thousand pesos. The respondent said he would try to talk to them and would call or text.

At one o'clock in the afternoon that same day, the respondent texted Cesar that the officer in charge and the judge did not agree because the Order had already been made. Cesar replied, referring to the respondent's claim that there were two orders, one granting and one denying, and said he was already trying to raise ten thousand pesos. On March 2, 2012, Cesar and Cyril returned to Branch 265 and met the respondent at the sixth floor of the Hall of Justice, where an argument ensued. Cesar confronted the respondent about asking them for ten thousand pesos, and the respondent admitted that there were two orders but that the judge would choose which one to sign. Cyril heard the entire conversation. The respondent denied all the accusations, claiming the allegations were fabricated by a litigant who had obtained an unfavorable order, and that he did not know Cesar or the complainant personally.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct for soliciting money from a party-litigant in exchange for a favorable ruling.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from the service is proper despite the respondent's long years of service and the absence of a prior offense.

Applicable Provisions

Section 46, paragraph A, of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

The penalty of dismissal from the service is imposed for grave misconduct even for the first offense.

This provision fixes the penalty for grave misconduct, which the Court applies to the respondent's act of soliciting money from a litigant.

Section 1, Canon II of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Judges and court personnel shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

The Court cites this Canon because the respondent showed a court order not yet released to the parties to persons who were not privy to it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct must relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. To differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of an established rule, must be manifest in the former. The Court held that solicitation or receiving money from litigants by court personnel constitutes grave misconduct. The Court found that the evidence, consisting of the text messages and the testimony of Cesar and Cyril, sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent tried to extort money from Cesar in exchange for a favorable ruling on the complainant's motion. The Court identified three acts for which the respondent is liable: first, communicating with a litigant who had a pending case in the court where he was assigned; second, showing a court order not yet released to the parties to persons who were not privy thereto, in violation of Section 1, Canon II of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; and third, making it appear that he could influence a judge to modify or change the prepared order in exchange for money, which constitutes grave misconduct. The Court stressed that all members of the judiciary should be free from any whiff of impropriety, and that court personnel cannot take advantage of the vulnerability of desperate party-litigants for monetary gain.

On the second issue, the Court held that dismissal is proper. While in some cases the Court mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons and other considerations such as length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, feelings of remorse, and family circumstances, none of these is applicable here. Due to the gravity of the respondent's acts, no mitigating circumstance can be appreciated. The Court emphasized that there is no defense that could justify asking or receiving money from party-litigants, and that the act itself makes court employees guilty of grave misconduct, for which they must bear the penalty of dismissal.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, and to constitute an administrative offense it must relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. Second, to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of an established rule, must be manifest in the former. Third, solicitation or receiving money from litigants by court personnel constitutes grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from service even for the first offense under Section 46, paragraph A, of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Fourth, in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Fifth, length of service and first offense do not mitigate the penalty where the acts are grave, because there is no defense that could justify asking or receiving money from party-litigants.

Disposition

The Court found respondent Solminio B. Delas Armas guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed him from the service immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that solicitation or receiving money from litigants by court personnel constitutes grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal even for the first offense, and no length of service can mitigate it. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between simple and grave misconduct, the quantum of substantial evidence in administrative proceedings, and the rule that court personnel must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.