G.R. No. A.M. No. CA-05-19-P August 31, 2006
Atty. Victoriano S. Muring, Jr., Complainant, vs. Atty. Manuel T. Gatcho, Nelpa Lota-Calayag, and Atty. Edna S. Paña, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Victoriano S. Muring, Jr., a court attorney, filed an administrative complaint against his co-employees, Atty. Manuel T. Gatcho and Nelpa Lota-Calayag, and private practitioner Atty. Edna S. Paña. He alleged that Atty. Gatcho and Calayag demanded and received P450,000 from Atty. Paña to facilitate a favorable decision from a Court of Appeals Justice in a case she was handling. He further claimed they demanded an additional P150,000 for a favorable action from a Supreme Court Justice. Complainant asserted that Atty. Paña confessed this to him and another attorney during a social gathering. Following this disclosure, he reported being subjected to threats and verbal abuse from the respondents to suppress the information, and he was subsequently removed from his position in the office of Justice Abesamis.
In their respective Comments, all respondents denied the payoff allegations. Atty. Gatcho and Calayag characterized the complaint as stemming from office intrigues and interpersonal conflicts. Atty. Paña admitted sending text messages to the complainant but claimed they were due to personal disputes and not threats to conceal a crime. The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable based on the allegations of bribery and misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the direct charges of bribery and corruption against Atty. Gatcho and Calayag for lack of substantial evidence. The complainant’s allegations were primarily based on hearsay, as he had no personal knowledge of the actual payoff transactions. The Court found the evidence insufficient to meet the required standard of proof for such grave offenses. Consequently, the administrative complaint against Nelpa Lota-Calayag was dismissed for lack of merit.
However, the investigation uncovered other administrative violations by the parties. Atty. Edna S. Paña was found guilty of gross misconduct for attempting to obstruct the investigation by pressuring witnesses not to testify, as corroborated by an affidavit from another attorney. For this, she was suspended from the practice of law for three months. Separately, Atty. Victoriano S. Muring, Jr. was admonished for engaging in the unauthorized private practice of law while employed in the judiciary. Atty. Manuel T. Gatcho was also admonished for filing an application to be commissioned as a notary public without the required prior permission from his superior, constituting an act of private practice. Both were sternly warned that repetition would merit a more severe sanction.