JOSE GULFIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. CHRISOLDO SERRANO, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Jose Gulfin and others^[1] were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1130 of
the Regional Trial Court of Davao Oriental (Branch
VI), for specific performance against a certain Narciso
Gulaya.  During
the trial, the Court Interpreter, Chrisoldo Serrano,
was appointed commissioner, entrusted with the administration of the property
subject of the action.  Serrano assumed
that office and subsequently submitted a report to the Court of his receipts
and disbursements as administrator of the property in which he declared inter alia that as of November 9, 1984 there was in his custody the amount of
P40,587.72.

On May 15,
1985, the action
having resulted in an amicable settlement, the Trial Court issued an order
terminating Serrano’s appointment as commissioner and requiring him to turn
over all the money and income of the property under his administration to the
Clerk of Court, Mrs. Milcah A. Noval.  On July 8, 1985, the latter informed the Court that Serrano
had failed to comply with the Order of May 15, 1985.

Jose Gulfin
then filed with this court an administrative complaint dated September
16, 1985 against
Serrano, charging him with “dishonesty, oppression, neglect of duty, partiality
and corrupt practices.” The complaint alleged that Serrano had allowed
defendant Gulaya to harvest and sell the fruits of
the property under administration without bothering to check “the accuracy of
the number of sacks of palay, and tons of copra, nor
the correctness of the purchase prices thereof, etc.;” and had moreover
misappropriated and converted to his a personal benefit the shares due the
plaintiffs.

The Court required
Serrano to file his comment on the complaint, which he did under date of October
18, 1985.  The case was thereafter referred by Deputy
Court Administrator (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) Leo D. Medialdea to Executive Judge Jose C. Estrada, Regional
Trial Court at Mati, Davao
Oriental for “investigation, report and recommendation.” Judge Estrada however
inhibited himself.  So the case was referred to and actually investigated by Judge Ricardo M. Berba (who has since been appointed Executive Judge).

Evidence, testimonial and
documentary, was presented in due course by the parties before Judge Berba.

Among the proofs
submitted by Chrisoldo Serrano was a certification
dated October 21, 1985 drawn up by Celestino D. Cartagena, C.P.A., to the effect that based on the records
and documents submitted by Serrano himself respecting the income and expenses
of the property during his administration, there was a “total balance due the
heirs” in the sum of P43,544.67 as of June 30, 1985.  Serrano however tried to disprove this by
submitting a “Second Amended Commissioner’s Report” tending to show that the
balance actually due the Gulfin heirs was only
P3,870.67; but the receipts presented by him in substantiation thereof were all
dated from March 21, 1984 up to and including March 15, 1985 and had already
been taken up in his own accountant’s certification just referred to.  The evidence further establishes that despite
having been given more than ample opportunity to prove that he had already delivered this amount of
P43,544.67 to the Gulfin heirs, as was his clear
duty, Chrisoldo Serrano has failed to do so.

By his acts and
omissions, by his violation of the trust reposed in him as well as his clearly unfounded and
reprehensible efforts to escape liability therefor,
the respondent Chrisoldo Serrano has demonstrated his
unfitness to continue in service as a Court employee.^[2] His obligation to deliver the money
entrusted to him subsists, of course, and must be enforced.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the Court orders the DISMISSAL of Chrisoldo Serrano from his employment as Court Interpreter,
the FORFEITURE of all retirement gratuities or benefits which might otherwise
be due him, and his DISQUALIFICATION for employment in any other branch or
department of the Government.  He is also
COMMANDED forthwith to pay and deliver the amount of P43,544.67, with interest
thereon at the legal rate from June 30, 1985 until full payment, to the Clerk
of Court of Branch VI of the Regional Trial Court of Davao
Oriental for disposition by said Court  in Civil Case No. 1130.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Sarmiento, J., on official leave.

^[1]
Referred to by him as “his co-heirs namely, Bibiana, Leoncio and Ana, all
surnamed GULFIN”

^[2]
SEE Abejaron v. Panes, 84 SCRA (1978);
Caballero v. Villanueva, 116 SCRA 140 (1982); Office of the Court
Administrator v. Soriano, 136 SCRA 461 (1985);
Bareno v. Cabauatan,
151 SCRA 293 (1987); Chingson v. Magbanua, 169 SCRA 873 in all of which cases, under substantially similar or analogous facts,
this Court decreed the dismissal from the service of the erring employee with
forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in the
Government

^[3]
SEE Garcia v. Asilo, 88 SCRA 606 (1979); Judge
B. P. Pardo v. Manleo
Academia, A.M. No. P-90-481, July 3, 1991