A.M. No. P-90-454 December 17, 1996
Carlos Mendoza, complainant, vs. Nicolas Tiongson, Deputy Sheriff, MCTC, Branch 3, Manila, and Elizur “Sol” D. Conti, Process Server, same court, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Carlos Mendoza was involved in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 130144) filed by JUL-VIZ Realty, represented by his sister, to evict occupants from a foreclosed building. Respondents Nicolas Tiongson, a Deputy Sheriff, and Elizur Conti, a Process Server, both of the Manila MCTC Branch III where the case was pending, were assigned to serve summons. In the course of their duties, they became acquainted with the complainant. Respondent Tiongson represented himself as the nephew of a judge and claimed he could influence a favorable decision for a monetary consideration. Over several occasions, the respondents collectively demanded and received from the complainant the total sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to expedite a favorable ruling. To further induce payment, respondent Conti even wrote down what he purported would be the dispositive portion of a decision in the plaintiff’s favor.
After collecting the final payment, the respondents became inaccessible. Subsequently, the court rendered a decision dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint, contrary to their assurances. An administrative complaint was filed. Respondent Tiongson denied the allegations, while respondent Conti failed to file any comment and later tendered a resignation, which was pending at the time of the proceedings. The case was referred for investigation, where the parties agreed to submit it for resolution based on the sworn complaint, Tiongson’s comment, and the records.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Nicolas Tiongson and Elizur Conti are administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, specifically for soliciting money under the guise of influencing a court decision.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable and are meted the supreme penalty of dismissal. The Court found the complaint meritorious based on the substantial evidence presented, which included the detailed sworn statement of the complainant and the corroborating circumstances. The investigating judge credited the complainant’s allegations over Tiongson’s bare denial. The act of soliciting money from a party with a pending case, coupled with the false representation of ability to influence the outcome, constitutes grave misconduct and a severe betrayal of public trust. Such conduct erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. The Court emphasized that all court personnel must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity, and their actions must be beyond suspicion at all times. The tendered resignation of respondent Conti was rejected, as accepting it would allow evasion of administrative liability. Accordingly, both respondents were DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.