ANTONIO C. SY, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARLEO J. ACADEMIA, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

Within a period of three years and three months, the following
administrative cases were filed against Marleo J. Academia, a Deputy Sheriff of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region:

I.   ADM. MATTER NO. P-87-72,
which is based on a Complaint-Affidavit of Antonio C. Sy
filed on 8 April 1987 by complainant’s counsel, Atty. Victorino
R. Yabut, Jr. in the Office of the Court
Administrator charging him and Atty. Alex Y. Tan of bribery, qualified theft,
and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as
amended) and praying that respondent Academia, as well as his sheriff guards or
representatives and other deputy sheriffs who assisted him, be administratively
dealt with and removed or suspended from office.  Complainant alleges therein that he is the President of the PENTA COPYER
CORPORATION, which was impleaded, together with him,
Evangeline Borromeo, Benson Pe
Chua, Juanito Co Sekbi,
Santos Pablo, as defendants in Civil Case No. 87-39611 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch XXVII; a writ of preliminary attachment was issued ex-parte by the Court; on the last working day of the week,
March 6, 1987, a three-pronged blitz was made against PENTA by a group of men
led by respondent Academia, assisted by Atty. Alex Tan, some fully-armed
members of PC-CAPCOM and other persons acting under the behest of the
“marauding party’s ringleaders”; the first group of respondent Academia pounced
upon the premises of PENTA’s main office and
thereupon caused to be levied upon and seized personal properties of PENTA; the
second group, composed of alleged deputy sheriffs of Manila, barged into PENTA’s bodega in Intramuros,
Manila and likewise levied upon and seized the corporation’s properties; then,
to cap the operation, respondent Academia, by and through his unnamed
assistants, likewise served notices of garnishment to several banks in Manila,
garnishing bank deposits not only of PENTA but also of the individual
stockholders/defendants in the civil case.

Complainant further alleges that the dispossession was done
without regard to the nature, value and quantity of PENTA’s
properties which, according to the law, should have been only for such as may
be necessary to satisfy plaintiffs’ demand; notwithstanding his sworn duty to
keep the property under his own official custody to await judgment and
execution in the action, Academia, in connivance with the plaintiffs, their
representatives and counsel, Atty. Tan, entrusted and transferred the custody
of and delivered the seized properties to the plaintiffs immediately after its
seizure on 6 March 1987; they were hauled and brought to a dilapidated bodega
with a “hole-infested roof”, owned
by plaintiffs or persons in cahoots with plaintiffs, located at Romy St., Maysilo, Malabon, Metro Manila, or outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the court; on 26 March 1987 the court issued an Order directing
the return of the attached properties and the recall of all notices of
garnishment.  Due to the continuous
unexplained absence of Academia and the unavailability of the Presiding Judge
of the court, the Order could not be enforced, prompting defendants to file an
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Appoint a Sheriff, which
was favorably acted upon by Judge Abelardo Dayrit who appointed sheriff Rolando Mariano to implement
the release order.

In the bodega aforestated, it was
discovered that, among others, most of the seized copying machines were
cannibalized, their important parts and accessories either pilfered or
substituted with junk parts; copying machines laid bare on watery floorings,
some of the machines and parts were used as sleeping beds, dining tables and
makeshift kitchen; worse, one ISUZU KC 20 van and other units of equipment
which were seized could not be accounted for.

In the Resolution of 27
May 1987 this Court required respondents to Answer the
complaint-affidavit.

Respondent Academia filed his Answer on 28 August 1987 denying the allegations in the
compliant.

Complainant filed a Reply to the Answer on 15 September 1987 wherein he reiterated the
charges and prayer in his complaint-affidavit.

On 14 February 1990 We issued a resolution requiring complainant
to specifically identify the other implicated unnamed respondents within ten days from notice, and
referring the complaint against Atty. Alex Tan to the Office of the Bar
Confidant for appropriate action within thirty days and against the other
respondents to Executive Judge Bernardo Pardo of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila for investigation, report and recommendation
within three months.

On 3 April 1990 complainant filed a motion to dismiss his
complaint alleging therein that he is no longer interested in pursuing this
complaint against all respondents on the ground that the parties in Civil Case
No. 87-39611 had entered into a Compromise Agreement wherein they agreed, inter
alia, to dismiss all claims, counterclaims,
charges and countercharges against each party and their respective
counsel.  The Compromise Agreement was
made the basis of the decision of the trial court of 3 November 1989.

On 10 July 1990
Judge Pardo formally transmitted his Report and
Recommendation dated 21 June 1990,
pertinent portions of which read as follows:

x x x

“Respondent appeared on the date of the hearing in person without
benefit of counsel.  He was advised by
the investigator that he could avail himself of the services of counsel.  Due to the non-appearance of the complainant,
respondent deputy sheriff stated that he was submitting the case for resolution
on the basis of his comment dated August
21, 1987 filed in this case. 
He reiterated that the administrative case against him be dismissed for
lack of merit as he was merely performing the duties vested in his position in
carrying out the writ of attachment issued by the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 27, in Civil Case No. 87-39611, entitled Spouses Rolando V.
Mendoza, et al., Plaintiffs, versus Penta Copyer Corporation, et al., Defendants.

On April 18, 1990,
complainant filed a motion to dismiss dated March 26, 1990, praying that the above-entitled
administrative case be dismissed for the reason that the parties had settled
Civil Case No. 87-39611 by a compromise agreement filed with the court on September 2, 1989.

Notwithstanding such motion to dismiss which was filed before the
Supreme Court, we submit that there is more than adequate basis for
administrative action to be taken against Deputy Sheriff Marleo
J. Academia on the basis of indubitable facts appearing on the record which the
court may take judicial notice of and on admissions made by respondent deputy
sheriff in his comment above-mentioned.  Res ipsa loquitur.

Thus, the record shows that:

(1)    Respondent Marleo
J. Academia is the duly
appointed deputy sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Manila,
Branch 27, qualified and performing his functions as such:

(2)     On February 27, 1987, there was filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Manila a complaint for recovery of the sum of P1.5 million as
principal obligation plus unspecified amount of moral and exemplary damages and
25% of the principal obligation as attorney’s fees, entitled Spouses Rolando V.
Mendoza and Narcisa M. Mendoza, plaintiffs versus Penta Copyer Corporation and/or Evengeline (sic) A. Borromeo,
Benson Pe Chua, Antonio C. Sy,
Juanito Co Sekbi and Santos
A. Pablo, defendants, docketed as Civil Case No. 87-39611.  The case was assigned to Branch 27 presided
over by Judge Ricardo D. Diaz.

(3)     On March
3, 1987, Judge Diaz, acting on the complaint, issued a writ of
preliminary attachment upon the filing of (sic) the plaintiffs of an attachment
bond in the amount of P1.5 million.

(4)     On March
4, 1987, plaintiffs filed an attachment bond subscribed by Interworld Assurance Corporation duly approved by Judge
Diaz and on March 5, 1987,
the corresponding order of attachment was issued by Judge Diaz.  The order of attachment was addressed to
Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia, commanding him to attach the estate, real and
personal, of defendants to the value of the demand amounting to P1.5 million.

(5)     In the morning of March 6, 1987, with
prepared notice of levy pursuant to a writ of attachment (already mimeographed
attachment), Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia together with a group of
men including Atty. Alex Y. Tan, counsel for plaintiffs, fully armed soldiers
of the PC/CAPCOM and policemen of the Western Police District and other men
hired by him went to the premises of Penta Copyer Corporation at its main office at 677 Carlos Palanca St., San Miguel, Manila, to carry out the levy on
attachment on personal properties of defendant Penta Copyer Corporation. 
Simultaneously, another group composed of other deputy sheriffs of
Manila whose identities were not revealed to complainant, but who were
admittedly acting as deputies of Sheriff Marleo J. Academia without any express court
order, went to defendant Penta Copyer
Corporation’s bodega in Intramuros, Manila, and
likewise carried out the writ of attachment against personal properties of the
defendants.

(6)     After listing the personal properties
levied upon in the aforesaid prepared notice of levy dated March 2, 1987,
Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia and his men
immediately seized the various personal properties in the two (2) premises,
pulled them out and boarded them into several trucks supplied by plaintiffs,
deposited them on the same day at plaintiffs’ bodega situated at Romy St., Maysilo, Malabon, Metro Manila under sheriff guard.  Among the personal properties seized were
several units of new Ricoh Copier machines, and included one (1) unit Isuzu KC
20 van with plate No. KPG-631 in good running condition and one (1) unit Suzuki
motorcycle, model B-120, with plate No. 1418.  The Malabon
bodega was dilapidated and was owned by plaintiffs (sic) Mendoza.

(7)     Sheriff Marleo J.
Academia even required plaintiff spouses Mendoza through their counsel, Atty.
Alex Y. Tan to acknowledge receipt of the personal properties seized from the
two (2) premises aforesaid of the defendant Penta Copyer Corporation.

(8)     Also on March 6, 1987, respondent Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia
served upon several banking institutions notice of garnishment against the bank
account of defendants and worse, respondent even garnished the accounts of
stockholders of the corporation.

(9)     Even though the value of the properties
seized by Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia from defendant Penta Copyer Corporation is about
P1.8 million, which is more than
the amount sought to be recovered in the action, on March 10, 1987, at the
instance of Atty. Alex Y. Tan, counsel for plaintiffs, respondent deputy
sheriff Marleo J.
Academia went to the address of defendant Evangeline Borromeo
at 23 Mabolo, Malabon,
Metro Manila, served her a copy of the writ of attachment, summons with
complaint and bond, then levied upon personal properties found inside the said
premises consisting of six (6) units of generating sets.

(10)   Again, the generating sets seized from the
premises of defendant Evangeline Borromeo were pulled
out from the said address and deposited for safekeeping at plaintiff’s bodega
situated at Romy St.,
Maysilo, Malabon, Metro
Manila and turned over to the custody of the plaintiff spouses Mendoza through
lawyer Alex Y. Tan.

(11)   On March
26, 1987, the court (Judge Diaz) discharged the writ of preliminary
injunction issued on March 5, 1987
and ordered deputy sheriff Marleo J. Academia and the plaintiffs Mendoza
to forthwith return the levied properties of the defendants and likewise set
aside the notices of garnishment issued pursuant to said writ of attachment.

(12)   However, due to the absence of respondent
deputy sheriff Marleo J. Academia, the return of the seized properties could not be effected and the then executive judge
appointed a special sheriff in order to secure the return of the levied
properties to the defendants.

(13)   At the time the return of the levied
properties was to be carried out, many of the seized items were missing or
parts thereof cannibalized causing substantial loss to the defendants.  What is more, the Isuzu KC 20 van with plate
No. KPG 631 could no longer be located in the bodega.  This van was reported missing or carnapped to the police and constabulary authorities but
despite all efforts, the van could not be located until it was intercepted on
July 3, 1987 in front of City Bank Building, Paseo de
Roxas, Makati, driven by a
driver of a certain Atty. Cristino Abasolo, Jr. who claimed that the vehicle was lent to his wife in June, 1987 by
her friends, a former ranking official of the Tanodbayan.

On the basis of the facts disclosed above which are incontrovertible,
we are of the opinion that respondent deputy sheriff Marleo
J. Academia is guilty of serious
misconduct in office for having acted with abuse of authority in the manner in
which the writ of attachment was carried out. 
Thus, even assuming the regularity of the procedure in carrying out the
seizure of defendants’ properties in (sic) virtue of the order of attachment, respondent deputy
sheriff Marleo J. Academia grossly violated the law
and the Rules of Court in carting away the seized items, boarding them in
trucks and depositing them in plaintiffs’
own bodega at Romy St. Maysilo,
Malabon, Metro Manila, inadequately secured from
pilferage and exposed to elements in a place outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the court and the enforcing sheriff.  Respondent Academia failed to adequately
secure and safekeep the items which are very delicate
and can be easily stolen.  In fact, with
respect to the Isuzu KC 20 van, the vehicle could have been easily parked at
the parking area of the Manila Regional Trial Court and its keys kept in the
possession of the sheriff.  But
respondent deputy sheriff turned over to plaintiffs’ counsel possession of the
vehicle which was illegally lent to and used by unauthorized persons, and was
recovered only after about three (3) months with much effort.

What is more, respondent deputy sheriff Marleo
J. Academia gravely abused his authority by making excessive levy on property
of the defendants, simultaneously attaching such property situated in different
places, in addition to garnishment of bank accounts, worth far in excess of
plaintiffs’ demand in the complaint.  (Padolina vs. Henson, 173 SCRA 269).

As a deputy sheriff, respondent Marleo J.
Academia has no authority without an express order of the court which issued
the writ to designate other sheriffs as his deputies in order to carry out
simultaneous seizures of defendants’ properties situated at different places
and the garnishment of defendants’ bank accounts in several banks.

The seriousness of the illegal acts committed by respondent deputy
sheriff call for the imposition of the most severe penalty in the civil service
which is dismissal (sic) from the service with forfeiture of retirement rights,
if any.

WHEREFORE, we find the respondent deputy sheriff Marleo J. Academia guilty of grave misconduct in office and
accordingly, recommend that the Supreme Court dismiss him from the service with
forfeiture of his retirement rights, if any.

In connection with the second part of the resolution dated February
14, 1990, referring the complaint against Atty. Alex Y. Tan to the Bar
Confidant for appropriate action, we respectfully recommend that the
investigation be extended to Atty. Cristino Abasolo, Jr. in whose possession the Isuzu LV (sic) 20 van,
subject of levy, was found.”

II.  ADM. MATTER NO.
P-90-481, which is based on the verified letter, dated 13
July 1990, of Executive Judge Bernardo Pardo of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila wherein he charges Marleo
J. Academia with dishonesty committed as follows:

“1.  In Civil Case No. 83-21859 entitled Vicente
T. Ang, Plaintiff, versus Admiral Investment and
Financing Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Deputy Sheriff of Branch 27,
Respondent Marleo J. Academia received the amount of
P219,023.16 as the bid for the sale at public auction of property levied
upon.  The bid price was paid for by RCBC
Manager’s Check No. UN003261-0128 dated April 5, 1984, in the amount of
P210,000.00, payable to the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Manila, and
cash in the amount of P9,023.16.  Deputy
Sheriff Academia delivered the check to then Clerk of Court Cesar P. Javier who
deposited the same with the Philippine National Bank but Deputy Sheriff
Academia pocketed the cash in the amount of P9,023.16”.

“2.  By failing to deposit with the Clerk of Court
the cash amounting to P9,023.16 received by him constituting part of the
proceeds of an auction sale, respondent deputy sheriff committed an act of
dishonesty.”

and prays that respondent be ordered
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement rights, if any, and to
pay to the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Manila on account of Civil
Case No. 83-21859, the amount of P9,023.16 with interest at the legal rate from
7 March 1984, until fully paid.

In the Resolution of 1
August 1990 this Court directed Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad to investigate
the complaint and to submit his report and recommendation after the termination
thereof.

In a Notice of Hearing dated 14 September 1990, Deputy Court Administrator Bernad set the hearing on 28 September 1990 and furnished respondent with a copy of
the letter complaint requiring him to submit his Comments thereon on or before
the scheduled hearing.  He further
informed respondent that he may
appear with counsel at such hearing.

At the hearing on 28
September 1990 complainant testified and offered documentary
evidence.  Respondent appeared alone and openly declared
that he did not need time to secure the services of counsel.  He waived his right to cross-examine the
complainant, and when asked if he had anything to say about the testimony of
complainant, he just answered:

“If I have committed a mistake, Sir, please forgive me, anyway I
have paid already the amount complained of.” (TSN, p. 5; Rollo,
p. 28)

Respondent chose not to testify, and offered as his only evidence
the official receipt (O.R. No. 12986) for his payment on 26 September 1990 of the amount of
P9,023.16.  (Exh.
“1”).

After the hearing Deputy Court Administrator Bernad
submitted the following report, dated 19
October 1990, which was duly concurred in by Court Administrator Meynardo A. Tiro:

x x x                                              x x
x                                         x
x x

“Judge Bernardo P. Pardo, while taking
the witness stand propounded the questions to himself and testified that he
knows respondent being one of the Deputy Sheriffs of RTC, Manila, assigned to
Branch 27; that as Executive Judge of RTC, Manila, he ordered an inventory of
the contents of the safety deposit box of the outgoing Clerk of Court Atty.
Cesar Javier who was newly appointed judge of the RTC of Pampanga;
that among the papers he found, was PNB passbook no. 010-686608-2 marked as
Exhibit “C-1” in the name of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Manila in trust for
Branch 27, Civil Case No. 83-21859 where there was a balance of P210,000.00 on
April 27, 1984, and a withdrawal on June 6, 1984 of P50,000.00; that he asked
for the record of Civil Case No. 83-21859 and after examining the record he
discovered from the Sheriff’s Return that the actual money received by the
Deputy Sheriff as bid money was P219,023.16 but the money deposited at the PNB was only P210,000.00; that he was
convinced that on the basis of the record, there was a discrepancy in the
amount of P9,023.16 which was unaccounted for; that in the same order, he had the PNB update the bank book, Exhibit
“C-1”, and it was so updated showing a balance of P228,975.48 as of March 26, 1990 because of the
interests that had accumulated from June 6, 1984.  From the last entry of the balance of
P160,000.00, the amount had increased to P228,975.48 as of March 26, 1990; that
in the same order, he required the Asst. Clerk of Court who had already taken
over the position of Clerk of Court in a temporary manner to close this account
no. 010-686608-2 in the name of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Manila in trust for Branch
27, Civil Case No. 8321859, and to transfer the balance of the account to the
Fiduciary Account of the RTC, Manila under account no. 068-576012-6; that on
July 13, 1990, he filed an administrative case against Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia
for dishonesty which is now the subject of this investigation;

Judge Pardo offered as evidence, Exhibit
“A”, the Certificate of Sale dated March 6, 1984 consisting of 2 pages, the
second page marked as Exhibit “A-1”, showing that Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia
conducted an auction sale of the property of the defendants by virtue of an
Order of Attachment and that the highest bid was in the amount of P219,023.16;

Exhibit “B”, the manifestation/motion dated March 12, 1984 of the
Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia wherein he acknowledged that he received the amount
of P210,000.00 in check of the Rizal Banking
Corporation and cash in the amount of P9,023.16 as full payment of the said
bid;

Exhibit “C”, is the manifestation of Clerk of Court appearing in
the record dated March 27, 1984 showing that he deposited the amount of
P210,000.00 with the PNB under account no. 010-686608-2 in the name of Clerk of
Court, RTC, Manila in trust for Branch 27 in Civil Case No. 83-21859;

Exhibit “C-1” is the passbook itself of account no. 010-686608-2;

Exhibit “D” is the order dated April 2, 1984 in Civil Case No.
83-21859 showing that the court has authorized the withdrawal of P50,000.00 to
be remanded to the plaintiff in said
case from the account deposited with the PNB under Exhibit “C-1”;

Exhibit “D-1”, the entry in the passbook, withdrawal of P50,000.00
on June 6, 1989, leaving a
balance of P160,000;

Exhibit “E”, the receipt dated June 6, 1984 showing that the plaintiff Victor P. Ang, received the amount of P50,000.00 from Deputy Sheriff Marleo J. Academia;

Exhibit “F” and “F-1”, the Sheriff’s return in Civil Case No.
83-21859, entitled “Victor P. Ang vs. Admiral
Investment Financing Company, Inc.” consisting of 2 pages;

Exhibit “G”, the order dated February 28, 1990 of the Executive Judge in Civil Case No.
83-21859 (p. 3, Rollo);

Exhibit “G-1” (p. 4, ibid.) is the second page of that order.

With the admission of all these exhibits, the complainant rested
his case.

On the part of the respondent, he offered Official Receipt No.
129186 (sic) dated September 26, 1990 in the amount of P9,023.16 showing that
he has refunded the aforesaid amount to the court marked as Exhibit “1” (p. 22,
Rollo); that when the undersigned investigator asked
him if he had any other evidence, he said he had none and that with the
admission of his solitary exhibit, he rested his case throwing himself to the
mercy of this Court asking forgiveness and that he had already paid the amount
complained of.

From the foregoing, the complainant Judge Bernardo P. Pardo, Executive Judge of Manila
has duly proved his case for dishonesty against the respondent beyond
reasonable doubt.  The respondent perhaps
realizing that the case against him is indefensible, paid the amount to the
court on September 26, 1990
as shown by Official Receipt No. 1212986 (sic) for the sum of P9,023.16 marked
as Exhibit “1”.  Upon his plea of mercy
to the Investigator, the undersigned told him that it was not in his power to
grant mercy but from the Honorable Court.”

We shall decide both cases jointly.

ADM. MATTER NO. P-87-72

Judge Pardo correctly disregarded the
motion to dismiss on the ground that “there is more than adequate basis for
administrative action to be taken against” respondent Academia “on the basis of
indubitable facts appearing on the record which the court may take judicial
notice of and on admissions made by” him. 
We would go further by
saying that complaints against public officers and employees relating or
incidental to or in connection with the performance of their duties are necessarily
impressed with public interest.  By
express Constitutional mandate, a public office is a public trust (Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution of
the Philippines) and the holder thereof is a servant of the people to whom he
is accountable at all times.  He is not
relieved of that accountability by the benevolence of a private party.  Thus, a complaint for misconduct, malfeasance
or misfeasance against a public officer or employee cannot just be withdrawn at
any time by the complainant simply because he has lost interest in the
prosecution of the case.  Where, as in
the instant case, the charges are very serious and are supported by sufficient
evidence attached to the sworn complaint itself, and the complainant vigorously
reiterated such charges in his reply to the answer of the respondent, any
withdrawal or dismissal thereof upon motion of complainant would not only be
suspect but would be inimical to public interest.  If the charges are in fact true, the grant of
a motion to dismiss by complainant would hide the evil deed committed with the
disciplining authority being used therefor.

Public interest and the need to maintain the faith and confidence
of our people in the Government and its agencies and instrumentalities demand
then that proceedings in administrative cases against public officers and
employees should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of
complainants.

In a real sense, the complainants in such cases are just
witnesses, and therefore, regardless of their motions to dismiss and/or to
withdraw the complaints, the proceedings thereon may continue.

We agree with Judge Pardo that the acts
committed by respondent Academia in relation to the execution or implementation
of the writ of preliminary attachment constituted serious misconduct in office
which would warrant the imposition of the penalty he recommended.

ADM. MATTER NO. P-90-481

In this case this Court agrees with the investigator that the
complainant has duly proved beyond reasonable doubt his case for dishonesty
against respondent.

The same act of respondent, however, also constitutes grave
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Respondent’s refund of the amount he misappropriated and his plea
for forgiveness are of no moment and do not serve to mitigate his
administrative liability.  The refund was
made only on 26 September 1990,
or two days short of seven (7) months after he was ordered by complainant to
account for the amount misappropriated (Order of 28 February 1990, Exh. “G”) and
a little over two (2) months after complainant prepared his
letter-complaint.  He received the amount
from the highest bidder on 7 March 1984
yet (Exh. “F”). 
Were it not for the extraordinary diligence and zeal of complainant
Executive Judge, the misappropriation would have remained concealed in the safe
deposit box of the Clerk of Court.

Respondent’s plea for forgiveness is insincere and does not
proceed from a voluntary admission that his misappropriation was “a mistake”
and from a repentant heart.  The plea is
conditioned on a prior
determination that what he did was “a mistake”.  Without a tinge of sorrow and unaffected by
even a twinge of remorse, he merely nonchalantly stated:

“If I have committed a mistake, Sir, please forgive me, anyway I
already paid the amount complained of.” (TSN, Testimony of Judge Pardo, p. 5; Rollo, p. 28).

Yet, he ought to know from the very beginning that what he did
was not just a mistake; it was a well-planned, wrongful, and illegal act.  It should be noted that the bid price was
P219,023.16.  However, only P210,000.00
thereof was covered by the Manager’s Check of RCBC, payable to the Clerk of
Court.  The remaining amount of P9,023.16
was paid in cash, which respondent did not turn over to the Clerk of
Court.  No reason had been advanced as to
why the full amount of the bid price was not covered by the Manager’s
check.  It is logical to assume that the
splitting of the payment of the bid price into a Manager’s Check and cash was
made at the instance or upon instruction of respondent Sheriff so that, without
the slightest difficulty, he could withhold the cash and keep it for
himself.  He could not have done so had
the full amount been covered by the Manager’s check.

CONCLUSION

The administration of justice is a sacred task.  By the very nature of their duties and
responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold
inviolate, and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987
Constitution that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. 
(Sec. 1, Article XI).^[1]

This Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act
or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice
which would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish or
even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.  In Jereos,
Jr. vs. Reblando,
Sr. (71 SCRA 126, 131-132), We laid down the rule that the conduct and
behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
justice, like the courts below, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.  His conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above
suspicion.

Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness and honesty.  (Ablanida vs. Intia, Adm. Matter
No. R-770-P, May 17, 1988).

The acts complained of in the aforesaid two cases show beyond
doubt the unfitness of respondent to continue to hold any government position.  They are indicia of a character that resists
reform or reconstruction to meet the strict demands of a public office or
refuses to be bound by the ethical standards which public officers and
employees must uphold.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court
resolved to DISMISS respondent MARLEO J. ACADEMIA from the service for
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to
re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.

In Adm. Matter No. P-90-481, respondent is further ordered to pay
to the Clerk of Court of Branch 27, RTC, Manila, which the latter shall deposit
in the Fiduciary Account of the RTC of Manila (Account No. 068-576012-6), the
interests, at the legal rate, on the amount of P9,023.16 from 7 March 1984
until 25 September 1990, within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., on leave.

^[1]
To implement this provision the new Congress of the Philippines
passed Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which the President
approved on 20 February 1989.