Court Employee's Dismissal for Soliciting Money from Litigant Upheld

The Supreme Court has ruled that a court employee who demands money from a litigant in exchange for releasing a document commits 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) clarifies the strict standards of conduct expected of judiciary personnel and the penalties that follow when they abuse their positions.

The Facts of the Case

The respondent, Rachel M. Caliwag, was the Officer-in-Charge and Interpreter III of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Bangued, Abra. The complainant, Edgar B. Buyag, was an accused in a criminal case pending before that branch. Buyag had posted his lot as a property bond and submitted its Tax Declaration to the court as supporting documentation.

After the case was dismissed, Buyag sought to retrieve his Tax Declaration. Caliwag initially refused to release it, saying certain papers needed to be signed by the presiding judge. On January 11, 2008, Caliwag allegedly told Buyag that their security guard was demanding PHP 20,000.00 for the document's release. When Buyag said he could not afford it, Caliwag lowered the amount to PHP 10,000.00, then to PHP 5,000.00.

Buyag informed his lawyer, who advised him to coordinate with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). An entrapment operation was conducted on March 12, 2008. Caliwag was caught red-handed with the marked money, the Tax Declaration, and an Order purportedly issued by the judge.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue was whether Caliwag should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct for demanding money from Buyag in exchange for releasing the Tax Declaration.

The Court's Ruling

The Court found Caliwag guilty of gross misconduct, bribery, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Court defined grave misconduct as a transgression of established rules involving corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules. Corruption consists of an official unlawfully using their position to procure a benefit for themselves, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

The Court cited Garciso v. Oca, where a process server was dismissed for soliciting PHP 150,000.00 from a private individual. In that case, the Court held that soliciting or receiving money from litigants for personal gain constitutes extortion and gross misconduct.

The Court also noted that Caliwag's defenses of frame-up and denial were weak, especially since she was caught red-handed during the entrapment operation.

The Applicable Rules

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 states that it applies to all pending and future cases.

Under the CCACOP, court personnel shall not solicit or accept gifts, favors, or benefits from court users, lawyers, or litigants. The Code also prohibits receiving gifts or gratuities for assisting litigants.

The Court found that Caliwag committed direct bribery and violated Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). A single act may give rise to multiple offenses, and the respondent is liable for all of them, although only the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed.

The Penalty Imposed

Under the CCACOP, serious offenses such as gross misconduct and bribery may be penalized by dismissal, suspension, or fine. Because Caliwag had already transferred to another government office, dismissal could no longer be imposed. The Court instead imposed:

• A fine of PHP 100,000.00
• Forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits
• Disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations

The Court considered Caliwag's 13 years of service and the fact that this was her first offense as mitigating circumstances.

Practical Takeaways

• Court personnel must never solicit or accept money from litigants, regardless of the circumstances.
• A court employee's transfer, resignation, or retirement does not prevent the Supreme Court from continuing administrative proceedings already filed during their incumbency.
• Entrapment operations are valid means of proving extortion by public officers.
• The CCACOP now governs all pending and future administrative cases involving court personnel.
• A single act of corruption can result in multiple administrative liabilities, with penalties imposed for the most serious offense.

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