LEGAL ETHICS Dianne Nicole L.

Ramos
DRAFT NO: 1

RE: INVESTIGATION AND REPORT CONCERNING SAMUEL ANCHETA, JR.

A.M. No. 2019-17-SC, 18 February 2020, (PER CURIAM)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The image of the court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official, or otherwise,

of its personnel. All court personnel are mandated to adhere to the strictest standards of

honesty, integrity, morality and decency in both their professional and personal conduct.

Public service demands the highest level of honesty and transparency from its

officers and employees. The Constitution requires that all public officers and employees

be, at all times, accountable to the people, serve with utmost responsibility, integrity,

loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice; and lead modest public lives.

FACTS

Atty. Aguinaldo had a pending petition with the Court and Dr. Rodil helped him

look for possible contacts in the SC that can help him secure a favorable outcome. Dr.

Rodil’s then asked one of his patients, Posadas, who was a Records Officer at the

Reporters Office of the Court of Appeals for help. Posadas then got in touch with

Ancheta, who was a Records Officer at the Office of the Division Clerk of Court at the

SC. Ancheta then gave a copy of the documents to Atty. Corro.

 Not long afterwards, Atty. Corro demanded the amount of P10,000,000.00 in

exchange for drafting a favorable decision acquitting Atty. Aguinaldo’s client for illegal

sale of dangerous drugs. The amount was paid in four installments though the chain of

Atty. Aguinaldo to Dr. Rodil, to Posadas, to Ancheta, to Atty. Corro.

Atty. Corro then issued a favorable “decision” by the court to Atty. Aguinaldo,

which turned out to be fictions. As a result, Dr. Rodil filed a complaint for disbarment

against Atty. Corro. The Court disbarred Atty. Corro and referred Ancheta to its Office of

the Administrative Services (SC-OAS) to conduct investigation and give

recommendation.

Anchet’sa contention was that his name was merely “dragged” into the whole

controversy and that he was merely motivated by his desire to help someone seek

justice, which, according to him is one of the pillars of Christianity. Furthermore, he did

not obtain financial gain for his participation.

The SC-OAS found Ancheta to be guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from

service, with the corresponding forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave

credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the

government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The SC-OAS

stated the Ancheta actively participated in all material aspects of the transactions in

question.

ISSUES

Whether or not the SC approves the recommendations of the SC-OAS.

RULING

YES. The image of the court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official, or

otherwise, of its personnel. All court personnel are mandated to adhere to the strictest

standards of honesty, integrity, morality and decency in both their professional and

personal conduct. The Court finds that Ancheta had violated the following provisions of

the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel: (1) Canon I, Fidelity to Duty; (2) Canon II,

Confidentiality, and; (3) Canon IV, Performance of Duties.

Ancheta’s acts have created the impression to the mind of the public that instead

of being a bastion of justice, the judiciary has become a haven of corruption. Ancheta’s

contention that he was merely motivated to help someone seek justice is skewed and

corrupted. Furthermore, his claim that he did not gain financial rewards from the

transaction is immaterial. Public service demands the highest level of honesty and

transparency from its officers and employees. The Constitution requires that all public

officers and employees be, at all times, accountable to the people, serve with utmost

responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice; and lead

modest public lives.