RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER v.

JUDGE CORAZON D. SOLUREN AND RABINDRANATH A. TUZON

A.M. NO. P-14-3217, 8 October 2014, FIRST DIVISION, (Perlas-Bernabe, J.)

In order to differentiate Grave Misconduct from Simple Misconduct, the elements of

corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule, must be
manifest in the former.

As alleged in the anonymous letter, Judge Corazon D. Soluren had been

instructing the party-litigants to deposit with her court settlement money for various
cases in her sala. Rabindranath Tuzon, a legal researcher, merely acknowledged the
receipt of the money through handwritten notes without issuing any official receipts.
When the parties requested for the release of said money, Tuzon failed to timely
comply with the same. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the
letter to Executive Judge Evelyn A. Turla for discreet investigation and report. She
sent a letter to Tuzon stating that she did not find any act of irregularity or any
unauthorized collection on the part of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Tuzon
admitted his receipt of settlement money for the different cases lodged before Judge
Soluren’s sala. However, he asserted that he accepted said amounts from the parties
who were willing to settle the civil aspect of their respective cases and kept them in
the court’s vault. He did not issue official receipts for he is not an accountable
officer in possession of such receipts. Tuzon also gave various explanations
regarding his failure to timely release the amounts deposited to him. Judge Soluren
was no longer investigated due to her compulsory retirement. OCA found Tuzon
guilty of grave misconduct. It held that accepting fiduciary money for the court’s
safekeeping is not within the scope of Tuzon’s duties. He overstepped his bounds as
legal researcher. In doing so, he disregarded the rules of procedure and the law.

ISSUE:

Were the acts of Tuzon in receiving settlement money and failure to issue
official receipts therefor constitute grave misconduct and therefore should be held
administratively liable?

RULING:

No. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public
officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious,
important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply a
wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct
relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer’s official
duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or
failure to discharge the duties of the office.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

 The OCA correctly found that Tuzon, being a Legal Researcher, was not
authorized to receive any settlement money from party-litigants. Neither was it
shown that Judge Soluren instructed him to receive the same. Having kept the
money in his possession and exercised control over it, Tuzon evidently overstepped
his authority and, thus, committed a form of misconduct.

The Court, however, disagrees with the OCA’s appreciation of the

misconduct’s gravity. Considering the absence of any proof that Tuzon’s actions
were tainted with corruption, or with a clear intent to violate the law, or would
constitute a flagrant disregard of an established rule, Tuzon cannot be held liable for
Grave Misconduct but only for Simple Misconduct which is punishable by
suspension for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months at the
most without pay. That being said, the Court deems it proper to impose the
maximum of the foregoing penalty.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015