G.R. No. A.M. No. P-15-3329, November 6, 2017
Prosecutor Filipina C. Cabauatan, Complainant vs. Domingo B. Uvero, Sheriff IV, Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Ligao City, Albay, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Prosecutor Filipina C. Cabauatan alleged that on January 18, 2013, respondent Sheriff Domingo B. Uvero visited her office and attempted to hand her money wrapped in paper, purportedly from Nancy Reynancia, the private complainant in a criminal case the prosecutor was handling. Cabauatan refused, stating she neither accepts nor demands money. She further claimed that on January 22, 2013, Reynancia admitted to borrowing ₱7,500.00 to give as a bribe, believing it was necessary for her case to be handled well. Feeling her objectivity was compromised, Cabauatan filed a motion to inhibit from the case, which was granted.
In his defense, Uvero denied any malicious intent. He claimed Reynancia gave him the money wrapped in paper, describing it as intended for the prosecutor’s “merienda,” which he merely attempted to deliver as a favor. He asserted he returned the money when Cabauatan refused it and argued that giving tokens of appreciation was a common practice. He emphasized his 15 years of unblemished service and pleaded for compassion, admitting a lapse in judgment but denying any corrupt motive.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Domingo B. Uvero is administratively liable for his actions in attempting to deliver money from a litigant to the handling prosecutor.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. The Court emphasized that the conduct of all judiciary personnel is held to the highest ethical standards to preserve public faith in the justice system. Canon I, Section 2 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel explicitly prohibits soliciting or accepting any gift or benefit based on any understanding that it could influence official duties.
The Court rejected Uvero’s defenses. His claim of merely facilitating a “merienda” gift and his assertion that such token-giving is a common practice are irrelevant and unacceptable. The act of receiving or attempting to deliver money from a party-litigant to a court officer is inherently improper and constitutes grave misconduct, as it creates the unmistakable appearance of corruption and undermines judicial integrity. Good faith or lack of ill motive is not a defense, as the prohibited act itself tarnishes the institution’s integrity.
However, considering mitigating circumstances—including Uvero’s 15 years of service, this being his first offense, and his expression of remorse—the Court tempered the penalty. Instead of dismissal, which is the prescribed penalty for grave misconduct, the Court imposed a six-month suspension from service with a stern warning.