A.M. No. P-94-1061. March 13, 1995. MARCOS V. PRIETO, complainant, vs. GODOFREDO R. CARIAGA, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Marcos V. Prieto, representing Tagumpay Lending Investors, Inc., charged respondent Godofredo R. Cariaga, a Court Interpreter at the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, San Fernando, La Union, with violating the Civil Service Law and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charge stemmed from Cariaga’s unauthorized collection of money from Anabelle T. Coloma, a defendant in a collection case (Civil Case No. 2615) filed by Tagumpay. The case was pending in the branch where Cariaga was employed.
Investigation established that respondent collected from Coloma the amounts of P2,000.00 on August 24, 1993, P4,000.00 on August 31, 1993, and P1,000.00 on September 24, 1993, totaling P7,000.00. He led Coloma to believe the payments would be applied to her debt. When Coloma later contacted Prieto, she discovered the payments were not credited, leading to a confrontation. Respondent admitted the collections, expressed remorse, and partially reimbursed the amount. He claimed his actions were motivated by a desire to help Coloma, a former co-worker and friend, and to show gratitude to Prieto for past financial assistance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Godofredo R. Cariaga is administratively liable for his acts of collecting money from a party litigant in a case pending in his court.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. His actions violated Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The legal logic is clear: a court employee is strictly prohibited from having any financial interest in transactions related to their office or from soliciting or accepting anything of value from persons involved in matters before the court. By collecting money from a litigant and converting it for his own use without informing the complainant, respondent exploited his official position for personal gain, causing undue injury. His duties as a Court Interpreter involve trust and integrity, and his actions severely undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
The Court rejected his defenses of good faith and remorse, noting that dishonesty is a grave offense that reflects moral decay and has a debilitating effect on public service. His spontaneous admission and partial restitution did not mitigate the gravity of the offense. The penalty of dismissal is prescribed for such grave offenses to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, respondent is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from future government employment.