G.R. No. A.M. No. P-24-140 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 22-110-P). July 30, 2024.
Antolyn D. Gonzales, Complainant, vs. Dwight Aldwin S. Geronimo, Sheriff IV, Branch 121, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Antolyn D. Gonzales filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay before the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) against respondent Dwight Aldwin S. Geronimo, a Sheriff IV, for alleged violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP). Gonzales averred that on April 22, 2022, he received a letter from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 121, Imus, Cavite, which bore markings indicating the use of the franking privilege (sending mail without postage stamps). Upon opening it, he found it contained Geronimo’s Verified Comment on a prior administrative complaint (JIB FPI No. 21-071-P) filed by Gonzales against him. Gonzales verified with the local post office that Geronimo had availed of the franking privilege by guaranteeing the letter contained an official court transaction. Gonzales alleged Geronimo used his official position to secure an unwarranted benefit, violating Canon I, Section 1 of the CCCP.
In his defense, Geronimo claimed he filed his Verified Comment pursuant to a JIB directive and believed the administrative case pertained to his official functions, making its submission an official transaction eligible for franking privilege. He argued the complaint was baseless.
The JIB, through its Acting Executive Director, found Geronimo guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 26 (on franking privilege) and recommended a finding of simple misconduct with a fine of PHP 18,000.00. The JIB affirmed this, stating that while the act may constitute a violation of P.D. No. 26, it was the means to commit the administrative offense of simple misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Dwight Aldwin S. Geronimo should be held administratively liable for simple misconduct for violating Canon I, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel when he availed of the franking privilege under Presidential Decree No. 26.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent Geronimo liable for SIMPLE MISCONDUCT.
The Court ruled that Geronimo’s act of using the franking privilege to send a copy of his Verified Comment in a pending administrative case against him constituted a violation of Canon I, Section 1 of the CCCP, which proscribes court personnel from using their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges, or exemptions for themselves or others. By misrepresenting the mail as an official court transaction (indicating the RTC as sender and using franking markings), he exempted himself from paying postage, securing an unwarranted benefit.
The misconduct was classified as simple, not grave, because there was no clear evidence of corruption, bad faith, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule. The Court considered Geronimo’s claim that he honestly believed the administrative case involved his official functions, though this belief was mistaken.
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, simple misconduct is a less serious charge punishable by suspension of one to six months or a fine of more than PHP 35,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 100,000.00. The Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance that this was Geronimo’s first administrative offense (a prior case remained pending and unresolved). Applying Section 20 of Rule 140, where mitigating circumstances exist without aggravating ones, the penalty may be reduced to not less than half of the minimum. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 18,000.00 (which is not less than half of PHP 35,000.00) and issued a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
The Court clarified that Geronimo’s liability in this administrative case is confined to simple misconduct. Any potential criminal liability for violating Presidential Decree No. 26 is separate and distinct, and its determination is not within the scope of this administrative proceeding.