A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488; October 13, 2004
Adarlina G. Mataga, complainant, vs. Judge Maxwell S. Rosete, Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Santiago City and Process Server Gasat M. Payoyo, Municipal Trial Court, Cordon, Isabela, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Adarlina G. Mataga, a retired court stenographer, charged Judge Maxwell S. Rosete and Process Server Gasat M. Payoyo with Dishonesty and Misconduct. She alleged that after her disability retirement was approved, a Land Bank check for P165,530.08 representing her terminal pay was prepared. The check was released to respondent Payoyo, who turned it over to Judge Rosete. Complainant claimed that in March 1996, Payoyo brought her to Judge Rosete’s house, where she was given only P44,000.00. She later discovered the full check amount and accused respondents of not delivering the complete sum to her.
Respondent Judge Rosete denied the allegations, stating complainant never went to his house and he never gave her P44,000.00. He admitted receiving the misplaced check from a Supreme Court security guard and immediately handing it to Payoyo, knowing Payoyo was authorized to follow it up. Respondent Payoyo also denied the accusations, claiming he did not know complainant personally but was instructed by Judge Rosete to claim and encash the check. He asserted he turned over the full proceeds to complainant and her son at the judge’s house.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Maxwell S. Rosete and Process Server Gasat M. Payoyo are administratively liable for Dishonesty and Misconduct concerning the encashment and delivery of complainant’s retirement benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Rosete but found Process Server Gasat M. Payoyo guilty of Dishonesty, suspending him for six months. The Court emphasized that administrative charges against judges must be examined with a discriminating eye, as they are highly penal. The evidence against Judge Rosete was insufficient and incompetent; mere imputation without proof is never countenanced. The Court will protect judges from unfounded suits that disrupt the administration of justice.
In contrast, respondent Payoyo was held administratively liable. The investigating judge found that Payoyo encashed the check for P165,530.08 but did not deliver the full amount to complainant, giving only a portion pursuant to an undisclosed agreement. His conduct, including losing the check, falsifying the date on a receipt, and attempting to maliciously implicate Judge Rosete, demonstrated dishonesty. Judicial personnel must be living examples of uprightness to preserve the court’s standing. Payoyo’s actions fell short of this standard, warranting suspension. He was warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely.