Receiving Money from Bondsmen Is Grave Misconduct for Court Personnel

The Supreme Court has long held that those who work in the Judiciary must be beyond reproach. In Perez v. Roxas (A.M. No. P-16-3595, June 26, 2018), the Court En Banc ruled that a court employee who received money from bondsmen committed grave misconduct — even if the money was voluntarily given and allegedly intended for a "common fund." The case serves as a stern reminder that no amount of rationalization can excuse the act of receiving money from party-litigants.

The Facts

Almira L. Roxas was a Clerk III at Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal. In an administrative complaint, Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez charged her with grave misconduct, dishonesty, and other offenses.

The complaint stemmed from Roxas's own admission. In her earlier complaint against the judge, she stated that it was a "long practice" in the office to keep a common fund sourced from "little consideration" given by bondsmen as tokens of gratitude for allowing them to facilitate the posting of bail. Roxas admitted that she sometimes received these amounts and occasionally commingled them with her own money.

Roxas later went on absence without leave (AWOL) on October 14, 2013. She was eventually dropped from the rolls effective that date. However, the administrative case against her continued.

The Issue

The central question was whether Roxas's act of receiving money from bondsmen constituted grave misconduct, despite her defense that it was an accepted office practice and that the money was not for her personal benefit.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Roxas guilty of grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that her receipt of money from bondsmen was beyond dispute, as she categorically admitted it.

The Court rejected the "common practice" defense, citing Cabauatan v. Uvero, where it condemned court employees who use such a defense. The Court stated that it "would never tolerate any whiff of impropriety much less corruption."

Why the Defense Failed

The Court was clear: it is irrelevant whether the money was intended for Roxas alone or for the office's common fund. The mere act of receiving money from litigants is antithesis to being a court employee. The Court noted that the sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, erodes the respect for law and the courts.

The Court applied the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which prohibits court personnel from soliciting or accepting any gift, favor, or benefit based on an explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor, or benefit shall influence their official actions. The Code likewise prohibits accepting any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality, or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties. The exact section and canon numbers of these provisions are not specified in the decision as quoted in the available materials.

The Court also noted that Roxas had direct dealings with bondsmen by virtue of her position. The money was given as gratitude for allowing the bondsmen to facilitate the posting of bail — an act clearly related to her official duties.

The Penalty

Grave misconduct is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service for the first offense. Since Roxas had already been dropped from the rolls for being AWOL, the Court could no longer dismiss her. However, the Court imposed the accessory penalties that accompany dismissal:

• Forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits
• Perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, including government-owned and controlled corporations

Practical Takeaways

• No "token" is acceptable. Court personnel must not receive money or gifts from party-litigants, bondsmen, or anyone with business before the court. The act itself is the offense — motive and amount are immaterial.
• "Common practice" is not a defense. The Court has repeatedly condemned the use of office custom to justify improper conduct. A long-standing bad practice does not make it lawful.
• Voluntary giving does not excuse receipt. Whether the giver insisted or the recipient merely accepted, the court employee is still liable.
• The standard is exacting. The Judiciary demands moral righteousness from everyone connected to it, from judges to the lowliest clerk. Any conduct that erodes public faith in the courts will be severely sanctioned.
• Dismissal carries lasting consequences. Beyond losing one's job, dismissal brings forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from government service.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.