A.M. No. P-21-027 - Santiago-Avila vs. Narisma, Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-21-027)

Factual Background

On July 6, 2017, then Court Stenographer Nenita Paderes reported to Judge Santiago-Avila that a person identified as Eddie Cantoja was pretending to be the judge’s long-time driver and was extorting money from court litigants with the help of a court insider. The report came after Shirley Chan—whose daughter had a pending petition for bail—was mentioned as a prospective victim. Although Paderes initially hesitated to name the insider, she eventually identified Narisma, who was also known as “Jun.”

The next day, Shirley met with Judge Santiago-Avila in open courtroom. Shirley surprised the judge by disclosing that sometime in November 2016, Cantoja had introduced himself as the judge’s driver and bodyguard. Cantoja allegedly assured Shirley that he could help obtain a favorable resolution for Christine’s bail petition with the assistance of “Jun.” According to the narrative, Narisma then committed to speak with Judge Santiago-Avila for the release of an affirmative resolution within the month.

Judge Santiago-Avila stated that, in the second week of November 2016, Narisma went to her chambers and asked whether Christine, who was then detained, could be released within the month, claiming that Christine’s family was hoping for early discharge. The judge replied that the bail hearings were still ongoing. Judge Santiago-Avila further narrated that in December 2016, Narisma made a similar query, and she again gave the same reply.

In one of the bail hearings, Shirley recounted that Narisma accosted and warned her against entering the courtroom because he would personally facilitate Christine’s release. Shirley was allegedly told to wait for Cantoja’s call. Soon afterward, Cantoja called and informed Judge Santiago-Avila that the judge was demanding PHP 200,000.00 in exchange for an affirmative court resolution. Subsequently, although the RTC later granted Christine’s petition for bail on June 9, 2017, Cantoja continued demanding the PHP 200,000.00 and threatened that if Shirley failed to pay, Christine would be detained again because Cantoja and Narisma were supposedly in contact with Judge Santiago-Avila.

Alarmed by these revelations, Judge Santiago-Avila had Shirley accompany her to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). An entrapment operation against Cantoja and his cohorts was planned. After several attempts, Cantoja was arrested on July 12, 2017 upon receipt of the marked money from Shirley. Among the items seized from Cantoja was his cellular phone containing text messages from mobile number 0943-063-0794, which was verified to belong to Narisma.

Filing of Criminal and Administrative Cases; Temporary Relief

After the arrest, two criminal informations were filed against Cantoja and Narisma for robbery and for violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Judge Santiago-Avila then issued Memorandum Order No. 2017-13 dated July 18, 2017, temporarily relieving Narisma from his duties as process server pending the criminal investigation.

On September 29, 2017, criminal informations were again filed against Narisma and Cantoja for robbery and violation of R.A. No. 6713. In parallel, Judge Santiago-Avila instituted an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Narisma. She requested that if the charges were to be investigated, the same be referred to a judge whose jurisdiction was outside General Santos City, to deter Narisma from seeking help from judges he claimed to be closely acquainted with.

Upon OCA referral, Narisma was directed to file a Comment. He denied the accusation and asserted that he was merely a process server without capacity to influence the grant of bail or to demand money for favorable action. He also stated that Shirley and Christine were allegedly incarcerated in drug-related matters and emphasized his 25 years in government service without any prior administrative complaint. He prayed for the quick resolution because his salary had been placed on hold since May 2018.

Referral for Investigation and Findings of the Investigating Judge

The Court issued a resolution referring the case to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, for investigation, report, and recommendation. In his report, Executive Judge Santillan found that evidence linked Narisma to the shakedown of Shirley. The acts were treated as grave misconduct because Narisma abused his position as process server by conniving with Cantoja to compel Shirley to pay PHP 200,000.00 in exchange for a favorable resolution on Christine’s bail petition. The report emphasized that text messages demonstrated that Narisma gave the impression, not only to Shirley but to other detainees, that court resolutions could be bought for a price and that it was made to appear that Judge Santiago-Avila was the one demanding the money.

Santillan further found that, while the extortion attempt might be alleged as an isolated act by the respondent’s defenses, the communications between Narisma and Cantoja indicated that extortion activities continued across other cases. He recognized that Narisma’s previously unblemished service could be considered mitigating under Section (19)(1)(b) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, but he held that mitigation was offset because Narisma took advantage of familiarity with court processes and official relations with the complainant, which facilitated the offense, thereby constituting an aggravating circumstance under Section 19(2)(b).

The Court later recommended that the matter be redocketed as a regular administrative matter. It was thereafter referred to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), whose jurisdiction included complaints for violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel against court personnel and employees.

Evaluation by the Judicial Integrity Board

The JIB agreed with Santillan’s findings. It ruled that Narisma’s misconduct was substantially proven based on the investigation, the NBI entrapment operation leading to the arrest of Cantoja, and the evidence obtained therefrom, together with the filing of criminal informations for robbery and violation of R.A. No. 6713. The JIB characterized the misconduct as attended by corrupt purpose. It explained that corrupt purpose, an element of grave misconduct, exists when an official unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure a benefit for oneself or another, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

The JIB stressed that Narisma’s administrative liability was grounded on his collusion with Cantoja to extort money from Shirley in exchange for a favorable resolution for the bail petition. It treated as irrelevant the claim of lack of authority to influence a judge. It noted that the investigation itself supported Narisma’s supposed non-interference by the judge in the bail case. Rather, the JIB found that Narisma used Shirley’s familiarity and his inside position to gain an opportunity to monitor how Shirley would rule, then exploited his position and knowledge of court processes by colluding with Cantoja to induce Shirley to pay PHP 200,000.00 for Madison’s release on bail. The JIB further held that, even if Narisma could not have influenced the court’s ruling, he used the complainant’s name to make it appear that she asked for the money.

The JIB also considered and rejected the mitigating effect of unblemished service because Narisma’s official role as process server facilitated the commission of the extortion. It adopted the conclusion that the communications and modus operandi reflected continued improper activity.

The Core Issue on Liability

The “primordial issue” before the Court was whether Juanito B. Narisma, Jr. could be held administratively liable for grave misconduct.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court first held that the case was not rendered moot by Narisma’s separation from service. It explained that administrative matters become moot and academic only when there is no more actual controversy or no useful purpose in resolving the merits. The Court emphasized that even if separation could no longer be imposed, administrative offenses may still be met with other penalties, such as disqualification to hold government office and forfeiture of benefits.

On the standard for misconduct, the Court invoked its definition in Dela Rama v. Patricia D. De Leon, describing misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, including unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. It reiterated that to justify dismissal, the misconduct must be grave and weighty, and must imply wrongful intention rather than mere error of judgment. It further noted that administrative cases require only substantial evidence, meaning the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion of culpability.

Applying these standards, the Court found substantial evidence that Narisma attempted to extort money from Shirley under the pretense that he would facilitate Christine’s bail release. The Court held that his acts violated CANON I, Section 2 and CANON III, Section 2(e) of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. CANON I, Section 2 prohibits soliciting or accepting gifts or benefits based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such benefit will influence official actions. CANON III, Section 2(e) prohibits soliciting or accepting gifts and favors under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that the donor’s major purpose was to influence the performance of official duties.

The Court reiterated its consistent rulings that soliciting and receiving money from litigants for personal gain constitutes grave misconduct. It relied on Garciso v. Oca, where a process server was caught in an NBI entrapment operation soliciting PHP 150,000.00 in exchange for assistance toward obtaining a supposed re

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-21-027)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Honorable Lorna B. Santiago-Avila, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 36, General Santos City, South Cotabato, filed an administrative complaint against Juanito B. Narisma, Jr., a process server assigned to the same RTC.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an Investigation and Recommendation from Executive Judge Adelbert S. Santillan after a formal investigation of the administrative complaint.
After the OCA processes the matter, the case was later referred to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), which held jurisdiction over the complaint as described in the decision.
The JIB adopted the factual findings of Judge Santillan and concurred with the recommendation to find grave misconduct.
The Supreme Court resolved the primordial issue of whether Narisma should be held administratively liable for grave misconduct.

Key Factual Allegations

On July 6, 2017, then court stenographer Nenita Paderes reported to Judge Santiago-Avila that Eddie Cantoja was pretending to be the judge’s long-time driver and was extorting money from court litigants with the help of a court insider.
Shirley Chan became the complainant after revealing that her daughter Christine Madison Chan had a pending bail petition before the RTC.
Although Paderes initially hesitated to name the alleged insider, she eventually identified Narisma, also known as “Jun.”
On the following day, Shirley met Judge Santiago-Avila in the courtroom and narrated that in November 2016 Cantoja introduced himself as the judge’s driver and bodyguard.
Shirley alleged that Cantoja promised to facilitate a favorable resolution on Christine’s petition with the assistance of Jun, who later turned out to be Narisma.
Judge Santiago-Avila recounted that in the second week of November 2016, Narisma went to her chambers and asked whether Christine could be released within the month, citing the family’s hope for early discharge.
Judge Santiago-Avila also testified that Narisma made a similar request in December 2016, and she reiterated that bail hearings were still ongoing.
During one bail hearing, Shirley stated that Narisma accosted and warned her not to enter the courtroom because he would personally facilitate Christine’s release, and that she had to wait for Cantoja’s call.
Shirley narrated that Cantoja later called and informed her that Judge Santiago-Avila demanded PHP 200,000.00 in exchange for an affirmative court resolution.
The RTC later issued a Resolution dated June 9, 2017 granting Christine’s petition for bail, but Shirley claimed that Cantoja continued to demand payment and threatened that Christine would be detained again if the amount would not be paid.
Judge Santiago-Avila had Shirley brought to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), where an entrapment operation against Cantoja and cohorts was planned.
After repeated attempts, Cantoja was arrested on July 12, 2017 when he received marked money from Shirley.
The decision stated that Cantoja’s cellular phone contained text messages from mobile number 0943-063-0794, which was verified to belong to Narisma.
Two criminal informations were filed against Cantoja and Narisma for robbery and for violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Judge Santiago-Avila issued Memorandum Order No. 2017-13 dated July 18, 2017, temporarily relieving Narisma from duties as process server pending the criminal investigation.

Evidence and Administrative Investigation

The Court Administrator’s investigation was based on the formal investigation conducted by Judge Santillan and the submissions made therein.
Judge Santillan found that the evidence inexorably linked Narisma to the extortion attempt involving Shirley, and he held that Narisma abused his position as process server by conniving with Cantoja.
The narrative credited the text messages as showing that Narisma gave the impression to Shirley and other detainees that court resolutions and orders could be bought for a price.
The decision treated it as a significant fact that it was made to appear that Judge Santiago-Avila herself demanded the payment.
Judge Santillan indicated that the extortion activity may not have been isolated because of established communications between Narisma and Cantoja.
The JIB found that respondent’s misconduct was substantially proven by the entrapment operation, the evidence obtained therefrom, and the subsequent filing of criminal informations.
The JIB held that the corrupt purpose element of grave misconduct was satisfied because Narisma unlawfully used his station or character to procure benefit for another, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
The JIB also clarified that administrative liability did not hinge on whether Narisma had the ability to influence a judge, because his collusion with Cantoja was the actionable misconduct.
The JIB found the administrative theory supported by the claim that Narisma used complainant’s familiarity to get an inside track on how she would rule on the bail petition, then used that knowledge by inducing Shirley to pay in exchange for Christine’s release.
The JIB treated the use of the court personnel’s familiarity as part of the mechanism by which Narisma made it appear that Shirley herself sought payment from the judge.

Applicable Norms

The decision anchored the administrative charge on violations of the Code of Conduct