Title
Herdo vs. Bengson
Case
A.M. No. P-09-2686
Decision Date
Mar 28, 2011
Legal researcher Juliana Bengson suspended for six months and ordered to return P76,000 for facilitating a fraudulent land titling transaction, tarnishing judicial integrity.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-09-2686)

Procedural History

Hernando filed a complaint against Bengson for Simple Misconduct, following which the Court rendered a Resolution on March 10, 2010, finding Bengson guilty and imposing a suspension of one month and one day. Subsequently, Hernando filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking an increase in the penalty and an order for Bengson to return the amount of PHP 76,000, which was allegedly given to her under false pretenses.

Arguments of the Complainant

In her motion for reconsideration, Hernando reiterated her stance that Bengson’s actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, informing the court that, as a court employee, Bengson overstepped her professional boundaries by offering her services for the facilitation of land transfer papers and misleading Hernando regarding the qualifications of those involved in the process.

Defense of the Respondent

Bengson countered that her involvement was limited solely to accommodating a request from Hernando’s daughter and insisted she had no ulterior motives or involvement in the transaction that ultimately led to the complaint. She sought to distance herself from the facilitation of the land transfer process.

Findings of the Court

The Court maintained its initial finding of Bengson’s culpability in the misconduct, noting her complicity in the failed property titling. The evidence indicated that Bengson had actively participated by offering to connect Hernando with a surveyor and directly received the money paid by Hernando. Such actions were found to be significant in reinforcing Bengson's involvement in the alleged fraudulent transaction.

Assessment of Misconduct

The Court examined previous rulings, particularly referencing the case of Largo v. CA, which distinguished between private conduct and those actions that relate directly to official duties. It clarified that misconduct occurs when improper acts are directly related to an official's obligations, thus affecting the integrity of their office. Although there was no evidence that Bengson took advantage of her official position, the nature of her actions led to a tarnishing of her public role.

Conclusion of Conduct Assessment

Ultimately, the Court ruled that Bengson's actions constituted conduct that was prejudicial to the best interest of the service, leading to a determination of a heavier penalty than initially given. The violation notably compromised the integrity and image of the judiciary, which demands strict adherence to ethical conduct among its personnel.

Order for R

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.