G.R. No. A.M. No. P-16 January 31, 1977
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, complainant, vs. ANTOLIANO R. PACIS, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Jaime Bernal with the Department of Justice. Bernal denounced Antoliano R. Pacis, then a supply officer of the Department, as the intermediary of then Assistant City Fiscal Angel P. Purisima of Manila. The accusation was that Pacis sought to extort P25,000.00 from Bernal in consideration for a favorable decision in his civil case against NAWASA pending before the court of Judge Amante P. Purisima, the Fiscal’s brother. The Department of Justice found a prima facie case and required Pacis to submit an answer. Pacis denied the accusation, claiming he merely asked Mrs. Bernal at the canteen if her husband had met with Fiscal Purisima, who he had seen looking for someone the previous day.
The investigation revealed significant contradictions and contextual facts. Bernal’s own testimony and actions indicated he had actively sought connections to influence Judge Purisima, having made improper overtures to court personnel and an Undersecretary to expedite his case. Furthermore, the civil case itself was of dubious merit, involving a bloated claim for damages where the actual services had already been paid. A decision was subsequently rendered against Bernal, denying his claims for damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Antoliano R. Pacis is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for allegedly acting as an intermediary in an extortion scheme.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated Pacis. The legal logic rests on the insufficiency of evidence to sustain the charge and the questionable credibility of the complainant. For an administrative charge to prosper, substantial evidence is required. Here, the evidence presented was unreliable and failed to meet this standard. The sole testimony of Bernal, who stood to gain from a favorable outcome in his civil case, was uncorroborated and contradicted by his own demonstrated propensity to improperly seek influence within the judiciary.
The Court found Pacis’s explanation credible and consistent. His admitted inquiry to Mrs. Bernal was an innocuous follow-up to a prior, casual encounter with Fiscal Purisima, not a demand for money. Crucially, the broader context undermined the complaint’s foundation. Bernal was actively engaged in soliciting favors, his legal claim was tenuous, and he was ultimately unsuccessful in his case. The charge appeared to be a retaliatory or diversionary tactic. The Court emphasized that its discussion of Fiscal Purisima’s alleged involvement did not constitute a finding of guilt, as he was not a party to the case. The dismissal was based on the failure of the complainant to discharge the burden of proof with credible and substantial evidence, thereby warranting the respondent’s exoneration.