Court Personnel Disbarred for Extorting Litigant Over Court Document

The Supreme Court has ruled that a court interpreter who demanded money from a litigant in exchange for releasing a court document committed gross misconduct, bribery, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The case of Buyag v. Caliwag (A.M. No. P-26-313, April 29, 2026) underscores the judiciary's strict stance against corruption among court personnel, even when the respondent has already transferred to another government office.

The Facts

Complainant Edgar B. Buyag was the accused in a criminal case before Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bangued, Abra. He posted his lot as a property bond and submitted Tax Declaration No. 41582 to the court as supporting documentation. After the case was dismissed, Buyag sought to retrieve the tax declaration when a prospective buyer expressed interest in the property.

Respondent Rachel M. Caliwag, then Officer-in-Charge/Interpreter III of the court, refused to release the document. She claimed that certain papers needed the signature of Presiding Judge Corpuz B. Alzate. When Buyag returned in January 2008, Caliwag allegedly told him that their security guard was demanding PHP 20,000.00 for the document's release. She then lowered the amount to PHP 10,000.00, and eventually to PHP 5,000.00.

Buyag reported the matter to his lawyer, who advised him to coordinate with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). An entrapment operation was conducted on March 12, 2008, at a Mister Donut store in Bangued, Abra. Caliwag was caught red-handed with the marked money, the tax declaration, and an Order dated January 9, 2008 purportedly issued by Judge Alzate.

The Issue

Whether Caliwag should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct for demanding money from Buyag in exchange for releasing his tax declaration.

The Ruling

The Court adopted the findings of the Judicial Integrity Board, which found Caliwag guilty of gross misconduct, bribery, and violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Court applied the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel (CCACOP), which took effect on December 21, 2025. Its transitory clause provides that the Code applies to all pending and future cases.

The Court noted that Caliwag's transfer to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor did not bar the proceedings. Once jurisdiction over an administrative case attaches, it is not lost by the respondent's subsequent separation from the judiciary.

The Court found that Caliwag's acts violated Canon II (Propriety) and Canon III (Impartiality and Equality) of the CCACOP, which prohibit court personnel from soliciting or accepting gifts or favors from litigants. Her conduct also constituted direct bribery and violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Citing Garciso v. Oca, the Court reiterated that soliciting or receiving money from litigants for personal gain constitutes gross misconduct punishable by dismissal.

The Penalty

Since Caliwag had already transferred to another government agency, dismissal could no longer be imposed. Instead, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 100,000.00, plus the accessory penalties of dismissal: forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.

The Court considered as mitigating circumstances Caliwag's 13 years of government service and her being a first-time offender. The fine must be paid within three months from receipt of the decision, failing which indirect contempt proceedings shall be commenced.

Practical Takeaways

• Court personnel face severe consequences for soliciting or accepting money from litigants, regardless of the amount involved.
• Transfer or resignation does not escape liability. Administrative cases filed during a respondent's incumbency continue even after separation from service.
• The 2025 CCACOP applies retroactively to pending cases, unless its retroactive application would be infeasible or work injustice.
• Extortion by court personnel constitutes multiple offenses, including gross misconduct, bribery, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
• Entrapment operations are valid tools for proving extortion by public officers, and courts give weight to NBI evidence in administrative proceedings.

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