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 her approved disability retirement benefit was P165,530.08. The corresponding Land Bank check was released to respondent Payoyo, who turned it over to Judge Rosete. In March 1996, Payoyo brought Mataga to Judge Rosete’s house, where she was given only P44,000.00 as her terminal pay. She later discovered the full check amount and claimed respondents did not deliver the balance to her.
In their comments, Judge Rosete denied the allegations, stating Mataga never went to his house and he never gave her P44,000. He admitted receiving the misplaced check from a Supreme Court security guard and immediately handing it to Payoyo, knowing Payoyo was following it up for Mataga. Payoyo claimed he did not know Mataga personally but was instructed by Judge Rosete to claim and encash the check. He asserted he turned over the full proceeds to Mataga 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.

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 require competent and substantial proof due to their grave penal consequences. The evidence against Judge Rosete was insufficient and consisted merely of imputation without credible corroboration. The Court protects judges from unfounded suits that disrupt judicial administration.
In contrast, the investigating judge found Payoyo’s conduct and testimony dishonest and confusing. The evidence established that Payoyo collected the full amount of P165,530.08 but did not deliver it entirely to Mataga. He attempted to cover his actions by having Mataga sign a receipt and falsifying its date. His attempt to maliciously implicate Judge Rosete further aggravated his misconduct. The Court ruled that every court personnel must uphold the highest standards of integrity, as their conduct reflects on the judiciary’s integrity. Payoyo’s actions fell short of this standard, warranting administrative sanction. He was warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.