ANSBERTO P. PAREDES, COMPLAINANT, VS. FRANCISCO S. PADUA, CLERK III, COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

Respondent, an employee of
the Court of Appeals, is charged with serious misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having falsified
complainant’s signature in a document captioned “Authority to Sell”
and obtaining money with the use of said document.

Complainant stated that
he is one of the nine co-owners of a parcel of land located at Urbiztondo, San
Juan, La Union with an area of 2,670 square meters and covered by Tax
Declaration No. 17415. By virtue of the
letters of administration issued on November 29, 1977 in Special Proceedings
No. 2451-P, entitled “In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Teresa
Padua Paredes” by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 27, Pasay
City, complainant was appointed as administrator of the subject estate.

On November 30, 1990,
respondent saw complainant, a cousin, and told him that he was an agent for an
undisclosed principal interested in buying the Urbiztondo property for the
price of P200.00 per square meter. On
that same occasion, complainant informed respondent that the consent of all the
heirs of Teresa Padua Paredes had to be secured first before any sale covering
the subject property could be made.

On January 26, 1991,
Jasmin Bonifacio saw complainant and reported that respondent was able to get
P50,000.00 (P30,000.00 in cash and P20,000.00 in check) from her as earnest
money for the purchase of the Urbiztondo property. She also told complainant that she gave the money to respondent
after being shown the “Authority to Sell” (Complaint, Annex “B”), purportedly signed by complainant. Respondent also issued to her a receipt for
the payment (Complaint, Annex “D”) and executed a “Receipt/Agreement”, agreeing to sell the property in installment
(Complaint, Annex
“C”).

Complainant denied having executed the “Authority to
Sell” and having affixed the signature appearing thereon. He insisted that he never authorized
respondent, either verbally or in writing, to negotiate the sale of the
Urbiztondo property.

In support of his charges, complainant submitted the affidavit
dated February 6, 1991 of Jasmin Bonifacio (Complaint, Annex “E”)
attesting that she relied on the notarized “Authority to Sell” given
her by respondent in giving him the P50,000.00.

In his comment, respondent said that he was given verbal authority
by the complainant to negotiate the sale of the Urbiztondo property. Respondent admitted having received
P50,000.00 as earnest money, but he claimed that he gave the same to the
middlemen as their commission and as reimbursement for their advances. Noteworthy was respondent’s avoidance in his
comment of any reference to the charge that he falsified the signature of
complainant on the “Authority to Sell”.

In a Resolution dated
March 16, 1992, respondent was directed to inform the Court whether he had
“been criminally charged in connection with this case.” In a letter
filed on September 29, 1992, respondent informed the Court that the
Prosecutor’s Office of La Union had filed an information with the Regional Trial Court, San Fernando,
La Union, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2815-SF, charging him with Estafa
through Falsification.

As a general rule, this Court prefers to defer final action in an
administrative case when there is a pending criminal case against the
respondent based on the same set of facts as those obtaining in the
administrative case. The purpose of the
rule is not to preempt and influence the trial court in judging the merits of
the defenses put up by the accused. However, the admissions made by respondent bring this administrative
case outside the purview of the rule.

Respondent obliquely admitted that he had no written authority to
sell the property. All he claimed to
have been given him was a verbal authority. He admitted that he received P50,000.00 from the buyer of the property
and that he did not turn over the amount to complainant. His claim that he paid the money to the
“middlemen” for their commission is not convincing. He did not produce any receipt of payment,
much less identify the supposed payees.

Inasmuch as respondent admitted that complainant never gave him
any written authority to sell the property, it follows that the signature of
complainant appearing in the “Authority to Sell” used by respondent
to get money from Jasmin Bonifacio, was forged.

Respondent cannot claim that the acts complained of were done
outside his work as a court employee. As a public servant, he must also exhibit the highest sense of honesty
and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his
personal and private dealings with other people. The misdeeds of respondent involve moral turpitude and make him
unfit as a court employee. Court
personnel must adhere to the high ethical standards to preserve the Court’s
good name and standing. (De Chavez v.
Lescano, 139 SCRA 103 [1985]; Recto v. Racelis, 70 SCRA 438 [1976])

WHEREFORE, Francisco S. Padua is hereby DISMISSED from the
service with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment to any public office
including government owned or controlled corporations and his retirement benefits,
if any, are ordered forfeited. Let a
copy of this Decision be forwarded to the Court of Appeals and the Civil
Service Commission.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., no part.