A.M. No. CA-02-11-P. May 29, 2002.
Filma A. Velasquez, complainant, vs. Ronnie Inacay and Bernabe G. Aquino, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Filma A. Velasquez was a party in a civil case pending before the Court of Appeals. While awaiting the decision, rumors circulated in her barangay that she had lost the case. On May 6, 2000, she, along with her sister and daughter, went to the house of respondent Bernabe G. Aquino, a relative and a Court of Appeals employee, to seek his help in checking the case status. According to the complainant, Aquino stated in the Pangasinan dialect, “Pabayaan ninyo Tia at kung hindi pa nabili ang kaso tutulungan ko kayo” (Leave it to me, Auntie, and if the case has not yet been bought, I will help you). When asked to explain, he replied, “Siyempre kung naka-compromiso na hindi na pwedeng I-compromiso sa iba” (Of course, if it has already been compromised, it can no longer be compromised with another). The complainant later alleged that her lawyer was told by Aquino that a co-employee, Ronnie Inacay, was involved. Both respondents denied the allegations in their comments.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Ronnie Inacay and Bernabe G. Aquino are administratively liable based on the allegations in the complaint.

RULING

The complaint against Ronnie Inacay is dismissed for lack of merit. The investigation found no substantial evidence linking him to the incident, as the complainant’s own lawyer denied confronting Aquino about Inacay or even mentioning his name to the client.
However, respondent Bernabe G. Aquino is found guilty of Simple Misconduct. The Court credited the consistent affidavits and testimonies of the complainant and her two companions, which constituted substantial evidence that the conversation occurred. Aquino’s denial was deemed self-serving. While the evidence did not prove he boasted of personal influence, his statement about the case being “bought” or “compromised” was highly irresponsible. Such a statement, even if made in jest, creates a damaging impression that cases in the judiciary can be fixed or influenced, thereby eroding public confidence in the integrity of the courts. Court personnel must avoid any act or omission that diminishes the people’s faith in the judiciary. Their conduct, both official and personal, must always be beyond reproach.
Considering the mitigating circumstances of it being his first offense and his length of service, the minimum penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay is imposed pursuant to relevant Civil Service rules.