SC Dismisses RTC Deputy Sheriff for Receiving Kickbacks from Publisher of Judicial Notices

SC.JUDICIARY.GOV.PH

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Regional Trial Court (RTC) deputy sheriff for receiving kickbacks, amounting to P24,905.60, from the publisher of judicial notices issued by his court.

In a nine-page per curiam decision, the SC En Banc found respondent Rolando Tomas, Deputy Sheriff of the Santiago City Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, and dismissed him from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The Court approved the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)’s recommendation finding Tomas liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty but rejected the OCA’s recommended penalty of suspension. 

The Court also directed the Legal Office of the OCA to file with the Santiago City Prosecutor theappropriate criminal complaints against respondent Tomas in connection with the criminal aspect of the instant case under Section 5 of PD No. 1079, Revising and Consolidating All Laws and Decrees Regulating the Publication of Judicial Notices, Advertisements for Public Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales and Other Similar Notices, and Section 3(b) of RA No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.


Complainant Francisco Taguinod, publisher and editor of City Star, a newspaper locally published in Santiago City, previously initiated in Taguinod v. Madrid an administrative complaint against Branch 21’s presiding judge, Fe Albano Madrid, for irregularities in the allocation of judicial notices for publication by local publishers. In the course of the investigation by the OCA, Taguinod presented documentary evidence showing receipt by respondent of sums of money from March to November 1996 in exchange for City Star’s publication of judicial notices. As respondent Tomas was not impleaded in that case, the OCA recommended his separate investigation, which the Court approved.

In his comment to the charge, respondent Tomas readily admitted receiving payments from Taguinod in exchange for City Star’s publication of judicial notices. By way of defense, Tomas qualified that he “never demanded” any money from Taguinod. After investigation, the OCA recommended Tomas’ suspension for six months. 

The Court pointed out that Section 5 of PD 1079 prohibits court personnel from “directly or indirectly demand[ing] of or receiv[ing] x x x money, commission or gifts of any kind” for the privilege of publishing judicial notices. As such, the Court held that respondent’s defense that he “never demanded any money or any rebate” from Taguinod does not spare him from liability. “Section 5 not only prohibits local court personnel from “demanding” pay-offs, it also bars receipt of such pay-offs. Respondent will take himself out of the ambit of Section 5 only if he did neither,” the Court said.

By accepting pay-offs from Taguinod, the Court further held that respondent Tomas also violated Section 2(e), Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, mandating that court personnel shall not “solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality, or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.”

The Court noted that from March to November 1996, when City Star published judicial notices from Branch 21, for which respondent accepted 10 checks from Taguinod, respondent controlled the distribution of Branch 21’s judicial notices among Santiago City’s publishers because he was assigned this task by the judge. “It was in Taguinod’s interest, therefore, to give ‘discounts’ to respondent to influence respondent to keep assigning judicial notices to City Star. The 10 checks that Taguinod issued and respondent received speak volumes of this convenient, albeit unethical, arrangement. Section 2(e), Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct was crafted precisely to punish court personnel who engage in such practices,” the Court held.

The Court differed from the investigator’s view that respondent’s “unhesitant[ing] and candid admi[ssion]” of having received pay-offs from Taguinod is akin to “a plea of guilty [in criminal proceedings] that account attenuate the penalty imposed.” The Court noted that “the rule in criminal proceedings treating confessions as mitigating circumstance finds no rigorous application in administrative proceedings where the respondent, unlike the accused, stands to lose neither liberty nor property but a public trust to render service, a privilege burdened with numerous prohibitions such as those respondent violated.”

“To treat factual admissions of court personnel in disciplinary proceedings as standard basis to relax penalties not only renders nugatory the penalty structure carefully calibrated in the Uniform Rules but also provides incentive for erring employees to make strategic admissions calculated to spare them from receiving stiff penalties. The interest of maintaining a disciplined, ethical, and efficient corps of judicial employees militates against adopting such policy,” the Court added.

The Court also pointed out that PD 1079 is a special law providing penal sanctions for its violation. On the other hand, the Court noted that Section 3(b) of RA 3019 punishes as corrupt the practice of public officers of “directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.” Thus, the Court ruled that the documentary evidence on record coupled with respondent’s admission warrant referral of this matter to the Santiago City Prosecutor’s Office for violation of these penal provisions.

Concurring in the decision are Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Antonio T. Carpio, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose C. Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. took no part. Justice Jose Portugal Perez also took no part as he acted on the matter as Deputy Court Administrator. (AM No. P-09-2660, Taguinod v. Tomas, November 29, 2011)

Emphasis and links provided by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph