G.R. No. A.M. No. P-89-348, A.M. No. P-89-352, A.M. No. P-90-433. April 8, 1991.
Estelita Padrones, Esperanza Divinagracia, and Herminia Capagal, complainants, vs. Melchor Divinagracia, respondent.

FACTS

These are consolidated administrative complaints against Melchor Divinagracia, an Aide at the Offices of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City. Estelita Padrones accused him of collecting P6,750.00 from her, purportedly for a surety bond and to facilitate her husband’s provisional release, which he converted for personal use. Esperanza Divinagracia alleged he collected P1,300.00 from her as “grease money” for a prosecutor to expedite a criminal case involving her brother’s death. In both instances, respondent admitted receiving the money but claimed it was for assistance, later making partial or full restitution.
During the investigation by Executive Judge Ricardo Ilarde, a third complaint emerged. Herminia Capagal, a co-employee, testified that respondent never remitted any money to their office. Subsequently, respondent confronted Capagal at the provincial capitol, pointed a finger at her, called her derogatory names, and threatened, “by and by I will kill you,” due to her cooperation in the investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Melchor Divinagracia is administratively liable for his actions, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of two counts of dishonesty and one count of grave misconduct. The legal logic is that by falsely pretending to possess influence and connections within the court and prosecutor’s office, he succeeded in obtaining money from Padrones and Divinagracia under false pretenses. This conduct constitutes estafa and, at the very least, dishonesty, as it involves deceit and a violation of public trust. His subsequent restitution does not mitigate his administrative liability, as the act itself is a consummated disservice to the administration of justice and tarnishes the court’s public image.
Furthermore, his act of threatening and verbally abusing Herminia Capagal for cooperating with the investigation constitutes grave misconduct. It demonstrates a lack of remorse and an attempt to obstruct an official inquiry. While the investigating judge recommended a six-month suspension, the Court, agreeing with the Office of the Court Administrator, found this penalty too lenient given the gravity and multiplicity of the offenses. Despite his eighteen years of service, his actions have irreparably blemished his record. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits is warranted.