G.R. No. A.M. No. P-96-1221 June 19, 1997
Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City, complainant, vs. Pablo C. Gernale, Jr., Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, filed an administrative case against respondent Deputy Sheriff Pablo C. Gernale, Jr. for direct bribery and grave misconduct, recommending his dismissal. The bribery charge arose from respondent’s service of a writ of preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. C-16305. During the hearing for the approval of a compromise agreement, it was revealed that respondent had demanded and received P3,000.00 from the plaintiff’s representative, Noli Latoga, to “facilitate” the service of the writ in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, in addition to Latoga shouldering all travel expenses. Respondent admitted receiving the money but claimed it was a voluntary token of appreciation. Upon Judge Angeles’s directive, respondent returned the money. The compromise agreement itself listed “Sheriff Services in serving attachment in the sum of P3,000.00” as a reimbursable litigation expense. The gross misconduct charge stemmed from respondent’s behavior during a court Christmas party on December 21, 1995, where he arrived drunk and noisy, defied the judge’s order to behave, dared her to sue him, and disrupted the party. Judge Angeles found him guilty of direct contempt, ordering one day’s imprisonment and a P10.00 fine. In his defense, respondent claimed the money was a gift, and his party behavior was merely an attempt to liven up the event.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Pablo C. Gernale, Jr. is administratively liable for improper solicitation of money from a litigant and for gross misconduct during an official court social function, warranting dismissal from service.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of both charges and DISMISSED him from the service with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or corporation. On the bribery charge, the Court held that soliciting and receiving P3,000.00 from a party to a case, which was later included as a recoverable litigation cost, constituted improper solicitation in violation of civil service rules, warranting dismissal. The amount, roughly half his monthly salary, could not be considered a mere token. On the misconduct charge, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings are separate from contempt proceedings; the penalty for contempt did not bar administrative sanction. Respondent’s drunken, disrespectful, and disruptive behavior at the Christmas party, in the presence of the judge and court staff, constituted grave misconduct. However, the Court noted that while respondent’s behavior was censurable and disrespectful, it did not constitute contempt of court as the disrupted event was a social gathering, not a judicial proceeding. The power to cite for contempt is for preserving the dignity of court functions, not for personal affronts. Nonetheless, this did not exonerate him from administrative liability.