Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82701:56518&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:26:16+00:00

Document:
ANACLETO O. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. AND JULETO D. VILLAHERMOSA, Complainants, v. VICTOR M. SARCIA, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT IV AND EFREN R. RIVAMONTE, UTILITY WORKER, BOTH FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Respondents.
Before this court is an administrative case involving employees of the Court of Appeals, Manila, who “transacted” with party–litigants with a pending case before the Court of Appeals.
After a careful review of the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, we find the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator in order. Court personnel, regardless of position or rank, are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the strict standards of integrity and morality. Indeed, the “special nature of [court personnel’s] duties and responsibilities” is recognized through the adoption of a separate Code of Conduct especially for them.39 The acts of court personnel reflect on the judiciary.40 Thus, it is necessary that they uphold the ideals of the judiciary.
In several cases, this court has held that the court personnel’s act of soliciting or receiving money from litigants constitutes grave misconduct.45 The sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, is antithesis to being a court employee.
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel46 requires that court personnel avoid conflicts of interest in performing official duties.47 It mandates that court personnel should not receive tips or other remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions or proceedings with the judiciary.48 “The Court has always stressed that all members of the judiciary should be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals, in order that the integrity and good name of the courts of justice shall be preserved.”49 Court personnel cannot take advantage of the vulnerability of party–litigants.
Grave misconduct merits dismissal.50 In some cases, the court exercised its discretion to assess mitigating circumstances such as length of service or the fact that a transgression might be the first offense of respondents. However, due to the gravity of the acts of respondents Sarcia and Rivamonte, no mitigating circumstances can be appreciated.
There is no defense in receiving money from party–litigants. The act itself makes court employees guilty of grave misconduct. They must bear the penalty of dismissal.
We note further the following admitted acts of respondent Sarcia, which merit on their own the penalty of dismissal.
Respondent Sarcia misrepresented himself as a lawyer and drafted pleadings for a party–litigant for a fee. The pleadings were filed in the same court where he is employed. Respondent Sarcia discussed with a party–litigant the latter’s case pending before the Court of Appeals. Worse, respondent Sarcia misrepresented to complainants Villahermosa the outcome of their case.
These acts of respondent Sarcia constitute dishonesty.
Complainants Villahermosa should have been told that court personnel cannot disclose information regarding a pending case, which is not yet public. However, respondent Sarcia did not do so and chose to lie and fabricate the outcome of a case. This, we cannot tolerate.
WHEREFORE, respondents Victor M. Sarcia and Efren R. Rivamonte are found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. Respondent Victor M. Sarcia is further found GUILTY of SERIOUS DISHONESTY. Respondents Sarcia and Rivamonte are DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government–owned or controlled corporations.
Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the Department of Justice for the filing of the appropriate criminal action, if warranted.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo–De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas–Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
2 Id. at 77. The case was docketed as CA–G.R. No. 105532 and was raffled to the Fourth Division.
14 Id. at 72, 86, 262.
31 Id. at 88, 98.
33 Id. at 99, 101.
39 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL, Fifth Whereas clause.
40Hidalgo v. Magtibay, 483 Phil. 186, 199 (2004) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
43 A.M. No. P–06–2225, November 23, 2010, 635 SCRA 701 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
45Office of the Court Administrator v. Diaz, 362 Phil. 580, 591 (1999) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division]; Narag v. Manio, A.M. No. P–08–2579, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 206, 211–212 [Per J. Corona, First Division]; Ramos v. Limeta, A.M. No. P–06–2225, November 23, 2010, 635 SCRA 701, 707 [Per Curiam, En Banc]; Canlas–Bartolome v. Manio, 564 Phil. 307, 313–314 (2007) [Per Curiam, En Banc]; Ong v. Manalabe, 489 Phil. 96, 105 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
47 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL, Canon III, sec. 1.
48 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL, Canon III, sec. 2 (b).
49 Anonymous Letter–Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, MTC, Manila, 592 Phil. 102, 118 (2008) [Per J. Austria–Martinez, En Banc] (Citation omitted).
50 REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, sec. 46, par. A, 3.
51Sanga v. Alcantara, A.M. No. P–09–2657, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 1, 10 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
52Sabado, Jr. v. Jornada, A.M. No. P–07–2344, April 15, 2009, 585 SCRA 12, 17 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
54 Mallonga v. Manio, A.M. No. P–07–2298, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 335, 342 [Per J. Leonardo–De Castro, En Banc] (Citation omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.