AM 92 736; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-92-736 November 16, 1993
Venus Tidalgo Ferrer, complainant, vs. Demetrio G. Gapasin, Sr., Interpreter, RTC Branch 52, Tayug, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Venus Tidalgo Ferrer appealed a forcible entry case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tayug, Branch 52. During a hearing on March 12, 1992, respondent Demetrio G. Gapasin, Sr., the court interpreter, offered to expedite the case in her favor for P25,000. Complainant agreed and gave respondent the money in three installments at his residence: P5,000 on March 18, P10,000 on March 23, and P10,000 on April 13, 1992. On July 8, 1992, the RTC affirmed the lower court’s decision against complainant. When confronted, respondent stated he was “powerless to decide the case” and promised to return the money but failed to do so. Complainant filed a sworn affidavit alleging gross misconduct. A witness, Romulo Lui, corroborated the deliveries of money. Respondent, in his defense, claimed the money was a loan for his grandmother’s hospitalization, evidenced by a Real Estate Mortgage dated July 25, 1992. Complainant denied this and disclaimed knowledge of the mortgage. Judge Pedro C. Cacho, the investigating judge, found the mortgage document to be altered (originally a Deed of Chattel Mortgage) and invalid, and noted that respondent’s family and a priest approached complainant to withdraw the case. Respondent failed to appear at the investigation despite notice.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Demetrio G. Gapasin, Sr. is guilty of gross misconduct for demanding and accepting money from a litigant with a pending case in the court where he is employed.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. The Court sustained the findings and recommendation of Judge Cacho. Respondent’s act of demanding and accepting money from complainant to influence a case pending in his court constitutes gross misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. As a court employee, his conduct must be above suspicion and characterized by integrity, uprightness, and honesty. The defense of a loan was discredited due to the altered and invalid mortgage document. Respondent is DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any government agency. All retirement benefits and privileges are forfeited, except for leave credits.