Sheriffs and Moonlighting: When a Side Business Becomes Simple Misconduct

The Supreme Court has long held that court personnel must devote their full time and attention to public service. But what happens when a sheriff runs a private money-lending business on the side, even during office hours? In a 2019 decision, the Court clarified that such conduct amounts to simple misconduct, reinforcing the strict standards expected of those who work in the judiciary.

The Case of the Iriga City Sheriff

The case arose from an anonymous complaint against Jessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta, a Sheriff IV at the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Camarines Sur, Branch 36. The complaint alleged that she had acquired ill-gotten wealth and was engaged in a money-lending business with high interest rates, devoting official time to this private pursuit.

An investigation by two executive judges found no evidence of ill-gotten wealth. However, it did reveal that Ibarreta ran a "5-6" money-lending business, charging interest rates of up to ten percent per month. Witnesses said she personally conducted this business even during office hours. When asked to comment, Ibarreta offered only a brief denial, claiming the business belonged to her late mother and had been discontinued.

The Governing Rules on Outside Work

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Ibarreta liable for simple misconduct. The Supreme Court agreed, citing two key sources of authority.

First, Administrative Circular No. 5 (October 4, 1988) prohibits all officials and employees of the Judiciary from engaging in any private business, vocation, or profession—even outside office hours. The circular explains that the entire time of judiciary personnel must be devoted to government service to ensure the efficient and speedy administration of justice.

Second, the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires court personnel to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. The specific issuance number for this code is not available in the ASG law library, but the Supreme Court's decision in this case expressly applied its provisions.

The Court emphasized that a sheriff's act of running a money-lending business while serving as a court officer put the integrity of her office under suspicion. Even if the activity itself is legal, moonlighting by a public servant can amount to malfeasance because of the nature of the position held.

The Penalty: Fine Instead of Suspension

Simple misconduct is classified as a less grave offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. However, the Court exercised its discretion to impose a fine instead.

Citing the case of Cabigao v. Nery, the Court noted that it may temper penalties when warranted by circumstances. Here, the Court considered that this was Ibarreta's first offense in thirty years of service, and that she performed frontline functions as a sheriff. Suspending her would leave her duties unattended and could harm public service. The Court thus ordered her to pay a fine equivalent to her salary for one month and one day.

Practical Takeaways

• Court personnel cannot engage in private business, even outside office hours. The prohibition under Administrative Circular No. 5 is absolute for judiciary employees.
• Running a "5-6" or similar lending business during work hours is simple misconduct. It violates the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and diminishes public trust in the judiciary.
• Sheriffs face heightened scrutiny. As frontline officers of the court, they must demonstrate integrity beyond reproach at all times.
• First-time offenders may receive a fine instead of suspension. Courts may consider length of service, frontline functions, and other mitigating factors.
• A weak denial can be treated as an admission. Failing to sufficiently rebut an accusation may be taken as an implicit admission of wrongdoing.

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