ESTHER MONTEMAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE FRANCISCO COLLADO, RESPONDENT.

Municipal Judge Francisco Collado of San
Fernando, La Union is charged administratively for his
unjust refusal to deposit with the Municipal Treasurer of the same municipality
the amount of P42, 000.00 representing the accrued rentals deposited by the
defendant in an ejectment case pending in his court.

The administrative case
was misfiled with the Court of First Instance of La Union instead of with this
Court.  The Court Administrator Lorenzo Relova, upon the Court’s being furnished with a copy of the
charges by complainant, and seeing the seriousness of the charges, forthwith
sent a telegram to Executive Judge Angel A. Daquigan
directing that the records of the case be forwarded to this Court.

It appears that on November
16, 1979,
complainant, representing Sylvia Montemayor de Leon
as plaintiff, filed with the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch
II, presided by herein respondent judge, an ejectment
case against one William Go, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 1298.

During the pendency of the ejectment case, defendant William Go had been depositing
with respondent judge the accrued monthly rentals from January 1980 totalling P42,000.00.  When complainant discovered that the rentals
consigned with respondent’s court had not been deposited with the Municipal
Treasurer of San Fernando, La Union, pursuant to the provisions of section 93
of Republic Act No. 296 but instead were in the personal possession of
respondent judge, she sent a letter to respondent judge, dated February 24,
1981, requesting that the deposited rentals be transferred to the custody of
the Municipal Treasurer.

When no action was taken by respondent judge on the
letter-request of complainant, her counsel filed on March 19, 1981 a motion requesting the court to
order the defendant to furnish plaintiff with an itemized statement of the
deposited rentals.  Complainant’s counsel
likewise reiterated his client’s request that the deposited rentals “be
transferred immediately to the office of the Municipal Treasurer for safekeeping as the office of the Clerk of Court is without
the necessary safe-deposit boxes which are burglar-proof.”

Respondent judge promised complainant that the whole amount would
be transferred to the Municipal Treasurer on or before April 15, 1981. 
On April 27, 1981,
when respondent judge failed to deposit the rentals with the Municipal
Treasurer, as required by law, she sent respondent judge a telegram giving him
up to May 11, 1981 within
which to comply with his promise; otherwise, she would be constrained to bring
the matter to the Supreme Court.  We
quote the telegram as follows:

“JUDGE FRANCISCO
COLLADO

MUNICIPAL JUDGE SAN FERNANDO LA UNION

“Have been informed by my lawyer that rentals have not yet
been deposited with Municipal Treasurer of San Fernando inspite
of your promise to deposit said amount on or before April 15, 1981 stop Please
be informed that if by May 11 the money has not yet been transferred I shall be
forced to report the matter to the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court for
proper action and investigation stop Judge I am sorry to do this to you stop

ESTHER Y.
MONTEMAYOR”

Instead, respondent judge, acting on the motion dated March 18, 1981, issued an Order
disallowing the transfer of the money to the Municipal Treasurer of San
Fernando, La Union, reading in part, as follows:

“After a careful evaluation of the motion and the opposition
thereto, the Court is of the honest opinion that disposition of the deposit by
defendant pending decision of the Court is at the option or prerogative of the
party making the deposit.  The Court has
no power to order its disposition without the conformity of defendant as the
party making the deposit.  In the
incident at bar, the depositing defendant objected to the transfer of the
deposit.  This opposition was reiterated
by defendant’s counsel in open court during the hearing of the motion.”

This prompted plaintiff and her counsel to file an urgent
“Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Deposited
Rentals.” But respondent judge again evaded the issue by issuing an Order,
dated June 1, 1981, stating
that “the said motion shall be resolved in the decision to be rendered in
this case.” Inasmuch as the rental is not in dispute and defendant is
supposed to pay the rentals as they fall due, it is obvious that respondent’s
said order raises grave doubts as to what he had done with the deposited rentals
which properly pertain to the plaintiff-lessor.

The provisions of sec. 93, Republic Act No. 296 mandatorily provide that “all moneys accruing to the
Government in municipal or city courts, including fees, fines, forfeiture,
costs or other miscellaneous receipts, and all trust or depository funds
paid into such courts shall be received by the municipal or city treasurer,
or in the City of Manila by the city treasurer, for disposition according to
law.”^[1]
The allegations of respondent judge that his court has no power to order its
disposition without the conformity of the party making the deposit and that he
is not duty bound to deposit the money with the Municipal Treasurer because the
money is not consigned with his court but it is merely a “private deposit”
made by the defendant with the court are patently devious excuses to keep the
deposited rentals in his possession, if they have not been actually misused or
misap­propriated.

Even if the rentals were not consigned in his court (as claimed
by respondent judge, because defendant allegedly did not notify the
plaintiff-creditor – a baseless claim because notice of deposit of rentals is
not required^[2]),
then respondent had no business accepting the “private deposit” of
the defendant – for there is no such thing as a “private deposit” in ejectment cases, or any other court case for that
matter.  But having accepted the deposit
of the rentals, he is bound by the mandate of the cited law to turn over the
funds immediately to the custody of the municipal treasurer, who is the
official authorized by law (not respondent judge) to receive such trust or
depository funds. (Parenthetically, he and defendant will have to answer for
the funds, if they have been misappropriated.)

When complainant made demands, through letters and motion, to
have the rentals deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of San
Fernando, La Union, respondent judge should have immediately
done so, to forestall or erase any possible suspicion that he had misused or
misappropriated the funds.  By his
totally unjustified actions, respondent judge placed his honesty and integrity
under serious doubt.^[3]
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
disposition 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 with propriety and above all must be
above suspicion.^[4]
Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position
exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual
than a seat in the judiciary.  A
magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such a manner that
his conduct, official and otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of
the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.^[5]
Respondent’s failure to deposit the funds with the municipal treasurer or to
produce them despite his pro­mise and the deadline given him amount to grave
misfeasance, if not malversation.

Considering that the records of the case sufficiently provide a
basis for the determination of respondent’s administrative liability, there is
no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges.^[6]
Respondent judge’s unjustified actions constitute serious misconduct or at best
gross ignorance which warrant his separation from the
service.

ACCORDINGLY, the respondent is ordered to forthwith
deposit with the Municipal Treasurer of San Fernando, La Union all amounts
deposited with him in Civil Case No. 1298 within a period of forty-eight (48)
hours from notice hereof.  The Court
finds respondent Municipal Judge Francisco Collado
guilty of serious misconduct and gross ig­norance, prejudicial to the public
interest, and as recommended by the Court Administrator, he is hereby dismissed
from the service, with for­feiture of all retirement benefits and pay and with
prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of
instrumentalities.  This decision is
immediately executory.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., concurred with
J. Guerrero, who voted for suspension of six months.

Abad Santos, J., on official leave.

^[1]
Underscoring supplied.

^[2]
Rule 70, Rules of Court.

^[3]
Dia-Añonuevo vs. Bercacio, 68 SCRA 81.

^[4]
Jereos,
Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr., 71 SCRA 126.

^[5]
Dia-Añonuevo vs. Bercacio, supra.

^[6]  Aquino vs. Aficial, 8P SCRA 222; Lawan vs. Moleta, 90 SCRA
579; Flores vs. Tatad, 96 SCRA 676.