01/01/2026
Supreme Court dismisses, disbars Benguet RTC clerk over bribery, misconduct
By Mia Magdalena Fokno
LA TRINIDAD, Benguet β The Supreme Court has dismissed from government service and disbarred Atty. Jurgens SJ. Milan, Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court in La Trinidad, Benguet, for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In a July 8, 2025 en banc decision, published on the website of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on December 21, 2025, the Court found that Milan repeatedly demanded and received money, unlawfully handled land titles entrusted to him, misrepresented his authority to influence court cases, and violated ethical standards governing court personnel and lawyers.
Money demands and abuse of office
The case arose from a complaint filed by Shirley K. Tiwaken, who accused Milan of exploiting his position while acting as clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff.
The Court ruled that Milan demanded β±10,000 for the supposed safekeeping of three land titles, later collected β±35,000 in several tranches for alleged case follow-ups, and subsequently asked for another β±25,000 after falsely claiming that a court decision had already been rendered.
These acts constituted bribery and grave misconduct, the Court held.
Unauthorized release of land titles
The ruling further found that Milan released original land titles without court authority to individuals who were not entitled to receive them, including relatives of an opposing litigant.
He also deliberately omitted these actions from his sheriffβs return and misrepresented facts to make it appear that the turnover of the titles complied with court orders.
No place in the Judiciary
In explaining the gravity of the violations, the Court said: βThere is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.β
Use of CPRA despite later enactment
Although the acts complained of were committed before 2023, the Court applied the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which was promulgated in April 2023 and took effect in May of that year.
Citing the CPRAβs transitory provision, the Court said the new code applies retroactively to pending cases, unless doing so would be unjust or impracticable. The Court found no such injustice in Milanβs case, and ruled that his actions violated both the old Code of Professional Responsibility and the CPRAβs stricter standards for lawyers and court personnel.
The Court stressed that the CPRA reinforces the principle that lawyers in government service must observe propriety, avoid conflicts of interest, and must never exploit their position for personal gain.
Dismissal, disbarment, and forfeiture of benefits
The Supreme Court ordered Milanβs dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and imposed permanent disqualification from reemployment in government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
It also ordered his immediate disbarment, striking his name off the Roll of Attorneys. The Court stressed that βmembership in the legal profession is a privilege,β and that it must be withdrawn once a lawyer is shown to be unworthy of public trust.
Failure to obey court orders
Apart from the substantive violations, the Court noted that Milan ignored repeated directives from the Office of the Court Administrator to submit his comment on the complaint, taking more than two years to comply.
For this, the Court imposed a separate β±18,000 fine, ruling that the delay amounted to insubordination and reflected disregard for the Courtβs administrative authority.
A ruling with institutional weight
The Court underscored that clerks of court occupy positions of trust at the frontlines of the justice system, and that abuses committed by court personnel erode public confidence in the Judiciary.
By imposing both dismissal and disbarment, the Court said it was not only penalizing individual misconduct but affirming that integrity, honesty, and accountability remain non-negotiable in the administration of justice.
