AM P 04 1875; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-04-1875. February 6, 2008
Emiliano Malabanan, complainant, vs. Niño R. Metrillo, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Tanauan City, Branch 83, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Emiliano Malabanan, then Barangay Chairperson, accompanied relatives of Esmeraldo De Guzman, a probationer facing a motion to revoke probation, to a meeting with respondent Niño Metrillo, a Clerk III at the RTC. Respondent assured them he could settle the case, claiming friendship with probation officers and that the presiding judge was his godfather. He demanded and received P20,000, stating half would go to the probation officer and half to the judge.
Respondent failed to fulfill his undertaking and even asked for more money, prompting the complaint. In his defense, respondent highlighted that a related criminal case for estafa had been dismissed based on an affidavit of desistance and that he had resigned from his position prior to the administrative proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether respondent’s resignation and the dismissal of the criminal estafa case extinguish his administrative liability for gross misconduct.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from re-employment. The Court’s legal reasoning is twofold. First, an administrative complaint survives resignation if filed prior thereto, as resignation does not preclude the determination of liability for acts committed while in service. The Court retains jurisdiction to pronounce on an official’s innocence or guilt to either vindicate integrity or impose proper censure.
Second, administrative liability is separate from criminal liability. The dismissal of the estafa case, based on a desistance, does not bar administrative proceedings. Here, respondent’s act of soliciting money under the false pretense of influencing court officials constitutes grave misconduct that severely undermines public trust in the judiciary. Such conduct warrants dismissal even for a first offense, as it portrays the deplorable image that justice is for sale. The penalty stands as a necessary measure to preserve judicial integrity and deter similar acts.