A.M. No. P-07-2346; February 18, 2008
RE: LETTER OF JUDGE LORENZA BORDIOS PACULDO, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, San Pedro, Laguna, ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAPSES COMMITTED BY NELIA P. ROSALES, Utility Worker, Same Court

FACTS

Acting Presiding Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Branch 1, San Pedro, Laguna, issued a warrant of arrest against Hilda Rivas in 2004. The case was later archived. In March 2006, Hilda’s husband, Elmer Rivas, went to the MTC to post bail for her. Respondent Nelia P. Rosales, a utility worker in the same court, approached Elmer and assured him she could facilitate the posting of the bond. Elmer handed Rosales P8,000 in cash for the bail, which she accepted without issuing a receipt.
At a subsequent hearing on Hilda’s “Motion to Revive and Post Bail,” Elmer testified that he gave the P8,000 to Rosales, was not given a receipt, and that the money was never used for bail. Judge Lorenza Bordios Paculdo referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In her comment, Rosales admitted receiving the money and preparing the motion, claiming she was merely helping litigants who did not know the procedure. She argued no bail was needed as the warrant had been lifted. The records did not show if the money was returned, and it was indubitable that the cash was never turned over for bail.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nelia P. Rosales, a utility worker, is administratively liable for her actions in receiving money for bail and preparing a court motion.

RULING

Yes, Rosales is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the OCA’s findings but modified the penalty. As a utility worker, Rosales’s functions are strictly limited to clerical and custodial duties, such as acting as a courier and maintaining court cleanliness. She is neither authorized to draft pleadings nor receive money for bail. By doing so, she committed an ultra vires act, usurping the functions of a lawyer and a clerk of court.
The Court rejected Rosales’s defense that she was merely helping without consideration. While charity is not prohibited, court personnel must maintain a hands-off attitude in dealings with litigants to preserve the judiciary’s integrity and avoid any suspicion of misconduct. Rosales’s actions misrepresented her capacity to influence court processes. Her failure to return the unlawfully received money, despite acknowledging receipt, aggravated her liability. The Court emphasized that every judiciary employee must be an example of integrity, and conduct must always be above suspicion.
Considering her 20 years of unblemished service as a mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed a penalty of six months suspension without pay, instead of the OCA’s recommended seven months, with a stern warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely. This balanced the need for discipline with recognition of her long service, while upholding the stringent ethical standards required of court personnel.