A.M. No. P-15-3301, May 11, 2021
Atty. Juvy Mell S. Malit, Complainant, vs. Marlyn C. Gloria, Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court [MCTC], Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Dinalupihan, Bataan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Juvy Mell S. Malit was the legal counsel for Reynaldo Vergara and his sister Erlinda Malibiran, against whom three criminal cases were filed in 2000. In 2002, Malibiran’s secretary, Ruby Santos, gave the total amount of ₱36,000.00 to respondent Marlyn C. Gloria, a Junior Process Server at the MCTC of Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan, as payment for Vergara’s bail (₱12,000.00 per case). Respondent issued two unofficial receipts for the payments dated July 16, 2002 (₱24,000.00) and August 8, 2002 (₱12,000.00). However, the cases were never set for hearing, the case folders could not be found, and the bail was not officially posted. When Atty. Malit inquired and filed a motion to lift the warrants of arrest, it was denied due to lack of evidence of bail posting. Atty. Malit demanded respondent pay the amount to the court, but respondent failed to do so, leading to the filing of this administrative complaint for Gross/Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. Respondent admitted receiving the money but claimed she turned it over to the former Clerk of Court, Virgilio Mejia, Sr., who supported this with a sworn affidavit. However, Mejia later executed an Affidavit of Recantation, stating no money was turned over to him and he was coerced by respondent. Respondent had already retired from service effective May 9, 2014.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Marlyn C. Gloria is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct for receiving the amount of ₱36,000.00 as cash bail from the complainant’s clients, which was not part of her duties as a process server and was not turned over and applied as bail.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent GUILTY of Gross Misconduct. The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the integrity of the judiciary. Respondent’s act of receiving the cash bail was a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and was not within her duties as a process server under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court. The elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and flagrant disregard of established rules constitute grave misconduct. While the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service prescribes dismissal for such a grave offense, and respondent had already retired, the Court applied Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. The penalty imposed was the FORFEITURE of her retirement and other benefits (except accrued leave credits) and PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION from re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality, in lieu of dismissal. The forfeiture is without prejudice to any civil action for restitution of the ₱36,000.00.