A.M. No. P-16-3595. June 26, 2018.
HON. DENNIS PATRICK Z. PEREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 67, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL, COMPLAINANT, V. ALMIRA L. ROXAS, CLERK III, BRANCH 67, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a counter-complaint filed by Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez against his Clerk III, Almira L. Roxas. The counter-complaint was a response to an earlier administrative complaint for oppression filed by Roxas against Judge Perez, which the Court had already dismissed for lack of merit. Judge Perez charged Roxas with grave misconduct, dishonesty, violation of anti-graft laws, and habitual absenteeism. He alleged that Roxas had been absent without official leave (AWOL) since October 2013, despite having a pending resignation effective December 2013, which she later withdrew. Consequently, the Court had already dropped Roxas from the rolls of employees effective October 15, 2013, for being on AWOL.
The core of the grave misconduct charge stemmed from Roxas’s own admissions in her earlier complaint. She stated that it was a “long practice” in their office to maintain a common fund, partly sourced from monetary “tokens of gratitude” given by bondsmen for facilitating bail postings. Roxas admitted that she was the one who usually assisted with the bail documents and that the bondsmen would sometimes course the money through her. She further confessed that there were instances when she “commingled those small amounts” with her personal money and “inadvertently failed to remit” them to the common fund.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Almira L. Roxas is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct based on her judicial admission of receiving money from bondsmen in the course of her official duties.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Almira L. Roxas GUILTY of Grave Misconduct. The ruling is anchored on her own judicial admissions, which constitute incontrovertible evidence. By explicitly stating in her verified complaint that she received money from bondsmen—individuals with pending transactions before the court—and that she occasionally failed to remit these amounts, Roxas admitted to acts constituting dishonesty and corrupt practice. The Court emphasized that the conduct of court personnel must be, and must appear to be, free from any impropriety. The act of receiving money from individuals with official business before the court, regardless of the amount or purported purpose (e.g., for a “common fund”), is a severe transgression that erodes public trust in the judiciary. It constitutes misconduct, which becomes grave due to the corrupt motive and the willful intent to violate the law.
The legal logic is clear: a judicial admission is binding and requires no further proof. Roxas’s attempt to justify the practice as an office tradition does not exonerate her; it instead confirms the irregularity. The Court held that such acts, by their very nature, constitute Grave Misconduct, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal. Since Roxas had already been dropped from the rolls for being AWOL, the Court imposed the accessory penalties. It ordered the forfeiture of all her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetually disqualified her from re-employment in any government agency. This decision underscores the zero-tolerance policy for any form of corruption or ethical breach among court personnel, essential for preserving the integrity of the judicial system.