RURAL BANK OF TALISAY (CEBU), INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ADELE V. VILLO, COMPLAINANT, V. MANUEL H. GIMENO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 19, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY, RESPO…

Rural Bank of Talisay versus Gimeno

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by the Rural Bank of Talisay (Cebu), Incorporated, represented by its president Adele V. Villo, against Manuel H. Gimeno, Sheriff IV of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The bank asks that the sheriff be dismissed from the service for taking the money it entrusted to him for the publication of a notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale and using it for his own purposes. The case matters because it fixes the exacting standard of conduct demanded of every person in the judiciary, and because it teaches how the Court calibrates the penalty of dismissal when the erring employee has already been dropped from the rolls.

Procedural History

The matter began not as a formal complaint but as a letter of the bank to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, who directed the clerk of court to investigate. The Office of the Clerk of Court rendered a report recommending an administrative sanction against the sheriff. The Executive Judge then forwarded the bank's letter to the Office of the Court Administrator, which advised that a formal complaint under oath was necessary before it could act. The bank accordingly filed the present complaint. The Office of the Court Administrator rendered its own report and recommendation finding the sheriff liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty and recommending dismissal from the service. The case then reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in a per curiam decision.

Facts

On the twenty third of November 2007, Arnie A. Cabanero obtained a credit accommodation from the bank in the principal amount of 150,000 pesos, secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title. After Cabanero failed to settle his overdue account despite demand, the bank filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. The petition was raffled to the respondent sheriff as sheriff designate of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.

On the eighth of December 2011, the sheriff brought to the bank a copy of the notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale, together with an undated bill for his services, including the cost of publishing the notice in a newspaper of general circulation. The bank's representative paid him 10,000 pesos as the cost of publication. The notice set the public auction for the twenty fifth of January 2012. In January 2012, however, the newspaper Cebu Daily News called the bank to ask for payment of the publication, saying it had never received the money. When the bank's officers confronted the sheriff on the twelfth of January 2012, he merely prepared a second amended notice setting the auction for the sixteenth of February 2012 and assured them that he would take care of the payment with the newspaper.

At the public auction on the sixteenth of February 2012, the bank placed a bid of 350,000 pesos. After the sale, it asked the sheriff for the certificate of sale for annotation on the title, but he failed to deliver it. The bank then learned that the notice had never been published at all. It reported the matter to the Executive Judge, and the investigation that followed revealed that the sheriff had received the 10,000 pesos but had used it for his mother's hospital expenses. In his comment, he admitted the taking, pleaded dire need, and invoked his twenty two years of service without any prior complaint. The Office of the Court Administrator noted that he answered the charges only after he had been dropped from the rolls and while he was processing his early retirement benefits.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is guilty of grave misconduct for appropriating the money entrusted to him for the publication of the notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
• Whether or not his length of service and his being a first offender justify the imposition of a penalty less than dismissal from the service.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may still be enforced against him, given that he had already been dropped from the rolls for absence without leave.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it rests on the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which it paraphrases in these words:

The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel stresses that employees of the judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it.

This standard is the measure against which the sheriff's admitted taking of the publication money is judged.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the sheriff is guilty of grave misconduct. Grave misconduct is the intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior attended with corruption or a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of an established rule. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, contemplates a scenario where public officials unlawfully and wrongfully use their position to procure some benefit for themselves, contrary to the rights of others. Here, the sheriff received the money in his capacity as sheriff and appropriated it for himself. Even if he used it for his mother's hospital bills, he still used his office to obtain funds from private persons for his own benefit and to their detriment. The Court also found a lack of contrition: he broke his promise to publish the amended notice, twice assured the Office of the Clerk of Court that he would publish, and answered the charges only when he was already claiming his retirement benefits.

On the second issue, the Court refused to reduce the penalty. Length of service does not ipso facto warrant a lesser penalty, because it is an alternative circumstance that may aggravate or mitigate depending on the factual setting. In cases involving a serious offense such as grave misconduct, length of service has been counted against the erring official even for a first offense. His lack of genuine remorse and the damage done to the image of the judiciary confirmed that dismissal was the proper penalty.

On the third issue, the Court recognized that dismissal from the service can no longer be applied to one already dropped from the rolls. It therefore held that the penalty should be enforced in full by imposing the administrative disabilities attendant to it.

Doctrine

Every employee of the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, bears a heavy burden of responsibility, and conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, be above suspicion. Grave misconduct requires corruption or a clear intent to violate the law or a flagrant disregard of established rules, and corruption is present when a public official unlawfully uses his position to procure a benefit for himself contrary to the rights of others. Length of service is an alternative circumstance, not an automatic mitigation, and it will not reduce the penalty for a serious offense like grave misconduct where the employee shows no genuine contrition. Finally, where the employee has already been dropped from the rolls, the penalty of dismissal is inapplicable, but its administrative disabilities are enforced in full: forfeiture of retirement and other benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Gimeno guilty of grave misconduct and held that he would have been dismissed from the service had he not already been dropped from the rolls; it forfeited his retirement and other benefits except accrued leave credits and perpetually disqualified him from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that court personnel must be above suspicion, and that a sheriff who pockets the publication money entrusted to him commits grave misconduct tainted with corruption. Examiners like to use this case on the elements of grave misconduct, on length of service as an alternative circumstance that does not automatically mitigate, and on the enforcement of administrative disabilities against an employee already dropped from the rolls.