A.M. No. P-23-093 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5028-P), December 05, 2023
Atty. Sotero T. Rambayon, Complainant, vs. George P. Clemente, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, Respondent.

FACTS

The administrative complaint stemmed from two letter-complaints filed by Atty. Sotero T. Rambayon against Sheriff George P. Clemente for alleged dishonesty and grave misconduct. The complainant detailed multiple instances of irregularities in the respondent’s performance of his duties. Specifically, Clemente was accused of unduly delaying the implementation of writs of execution in several civil cases where Atty. Rambayon was counsel. More egregiously, the respondent was charged with engaging in various money-making schemes from litigants. These included demanding and receiving unauthorized payments, such as a “mobilization fee,” money for police escorts, and funds for a surveyor’s sketch. He also solicited a goat (later substituted with a pig) for his birthday and “gasoline money” from parties. These acts were corroborated by other lawyers and were even exposed on a television program, where Clemente admitted receiving certain amounts.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed a discreet investigation, which confirmed the allegations. Despite being required to file a formal comment on the accusations, Clemente failed to comply with the OCA’s directive. The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), after evaluation, found substantial evidence supporting the charges and recommended the respondent’s dismissal from service.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff George P. Clemente is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent George P. Clemente guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and dismissed him from service. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that court personnel, especially sheriffs who are frontline officers in the execution of judgments, must conduct themselves with the highest degree of integrity and propriety. Their actions are circumscribed by the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which mandates that they shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor, or benefit based on their official position. Clemente’s acts of soliciting and accepting money, food, and livestock from litigants constituted a blatant violation of this rule and amounted to dishonesty for his deceitful and fraudulent conduct.
Furthermore, these acts constituted Grave Misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules of action through an unlawful conduct or gross negligence by a public officer. By demanding unauthorized fees and causing delays in the implementation of court writs unless his demands were met, Clemente committed acts that were corrupt, intentional, and reflected a willful intent to violate the law. Such conduct seriously undermined the administration of justice and eroded public trust in the judiciary. His failure to file a comment was deemed a waiver of his right to contest the charges. Applying the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, as adopted by the Court, the penalty of dismissal for Grave Misconduct is justified. The Court emphasized that dismissal carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service, serving as a stern warning against similar transgressions.