ROLANDO LIWANAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. FELIXBERTO GOMEZ, RESPONDENT.

Respondent Felixberto Gomez, Court
Interpreter, Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, Branch I, San
Fernando, Pampanga, has been
charged by Clerk of Court Rolando Liwanag of the same
court with having illegally claimed and collected traveling expenses and per
diems in the amount of P265.00 for the
period from February 23 to March 31,
1976.

It appears that on November 27, 1975, in CAR Case No. 1453-P’72
entitled “Magno Sunga,
et al. vs. Juanito Santos”, respondent was
designated by the Agrarian Court as its representative and implementing officer
to supervise the cutting and hauling of the sugar cane crop (for the year 1975)
of the plaintiffs in their respective landholdings, including the milling of
said crop and the distribution of plaintiffs’ shares in the net proceeds
thereof.

On January 22, 1976,
the afore-mentioned case was dismissed by the court after the parties had
reached an amicable settlement in open court. 
The dismissal of the case notwithstanding, respondent continued to
discharge his duties as implementing officer of the court.  On February
25, 1976 to March 31, 1976,
respondent went to the landholding in question, and in those occasions the
tenants were able to receive their shares from the proceeds of the sugar cane
harvested thereon.  For the period from
February 23 to March 31, 1976,
he collected traveling expenses and per diems in the amount of
P265.00.  Respondent’s aforesaid claim
was submitted to and passed upon by complainant Clerk of Court and the District
Judge, who recommended the approval of the voucher for payment.

The Acting Executive Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, to
whom this case was referred for investigation, report and recommendation, found
respondent to have filed his aforesaid claim for traveling expenses and per diems in good faith as
he was apparently not aware that the settlement of CAR Case No. 1453-P’72 on
January 22, 1976 terminated his authority. 
According to the Inquest Judge, respondent believed that he was entitled
to his claim as did the Clerk of Court and the Judge, who, despite the
termination of the case, recommended approval of respondent’s claim.  On the basis of said finding, the Inquest Judge recommended the exoneration of the
respondent.

We have carefully
examined the record and We find the report and
recommendation of the Acting Executive Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations
to be in order and amply warranted by the circumstances on record.

WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is DISMISSED
and the respondent exonerated from the charge. 
However, respondent is hereby directed to refund the amount of P265.00
which was paid to him by mistake, within ten (10) days from receipt of copy of this resolution.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos,
JJ., concur.