ALFREDO LLANES, COMPLAINANT, VS. GAUDIOSO BORJA, DEPUTY SHERIFF, RTC, BRANCH 19, NAGA CITY, RESPONDENT.

 This administrative matter
refers to the charges of highly irregular and dishonest acts brought by the
complainant, Alfredo Llanes, against Gaudioso Borja, the deputy sheriff of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Naga City.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On April 30,
1986, there appeared an item entitled “Sheriffs Deal Hit”
in the local weekly paper “Vox Bicol.” As the said article involved
the integrity of the sheriff’s office, the RTC Clerk of Court and Ex­-Oficio
Provincial Sheriff, Atty. Rosario Torrecampo, wrote a letter to the editor of
the paper requesting the identity of the deputy sheriff alluded to in the
article.  Jose Obian, the editor of Vox
Bicol acceded to the request and identified the respondent as the deputy
sheriff involved.

Meanwhile, in a letter-complaint dated May 26, 1986 sent to the
Clerk of Court, RTC of Naga City which was subsequently subscribed to under
oath on February 1, 1987, the complainant alleged that the respondent offered
him help to avoid the levy of his properties in connection with his case
entitled “Hidalgo v. Llanes”, by transferring them to his children by
means of fictitious deeds of
sale, and then demanded P3000.00 as bond for Mr. Hidalgo, P3,000 for the
expenses in the preparation of necessary documents and pocket money of
P275.00.  The complainant further alleged
that the respondent, together with his wife, in another instance proposed to
help the complainant register a mortgage contract executed by one Salvador
Motos in favor of the complainant as security for an
indebtedness.  On the basis of the
respondent’s representation, the complainant turned over the title and document
evidencing the obligation to him.  The
respondent in turn delivered the said papers to the mortgagor.

On June 16, 1986, Clerk of Court Torrecampo sent a letter to the
respondent requiring him to file a written comment which the latter did on June 30, 1986.

In his answer, the respondent strongly denied the allegation of
the complainant that he caused the simulated transfer of the properties to
avoid the levy of said properties and that he demanded P6,000.00
from the complainant for the said transaction. 
As for the second charge of the complainant, the respondent contended
that he was verbally authorized
by the complainant to demand and collect from the mortgagor, Mr. Motos, the
indebtedness in the amount of P24,000.00.  He added that the complainant even handed him
a duplicate copy of the mortgage contract with a promise that he would be
rewarded with money if he was able to collect.  He admitted that he prepared an application
for foreclosure of the real estate mortgage but alleged that it was upon the
request of the complainant.

Torrecampo having conducted a preliminary investigation of the
charges in the letter-complaint and the respondent having filed his answer thereto, recommended to the Executive Judge that a formal
investigation be conducted
wherein both parties would be afforded the opportunity to confront each other.

Executive Judge Juan Llagano, RTC, Naga
City asked this Court for instruction on what further action
to take.

This Court issued a resolution dated January 5, 1987 referring the matter to the Executive
Judge for investigation, report and recommendation, after the letter-complaint
was sworn to under oath by the complainant.

Acting on such order, the Executive Judge issued his report and
recommendation dated May 2, 1988.

In his report Executive Judge Llagano pinpointed the two issues
to be resolved, to wit:

“1.   Whether or not the respondent, by taking
advantage of his position as the executing sheriff in a case against the
complainant, and for the consideration of P6,275.00 received from the
complainant, resorted to a fraudulent scheme by instigating the complainant to
execute fictitious deeds of sale
of his truck and ricemill “kiskisan” to spare them from execution.”

“2.     Whether or not
the respondent, being a deputy sheriff, taking advantage of his position and
the confidence reposed in him by the complainant who entrusted to him the
certificate of title of a property mortgaged to the complainant by Mr. Salvador
Motos, with the promise to return the same to the complainant had, instead,
delivered the same to the mortgagor without the consent or authority of the
complainant-mortgagee.” (Rollo, p. 254)

The findings of the Executive Judge on the two issues are as
follows:

As to the first charge:

xxx                               xxx                               xxx

“It must be noted that it is officially recorded in the Office
of the Provincial Sheriff that the writ of execution issued by the Municipal
Court of Camaligan, Camarines Sur, was received by the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines
Sur only on June 4, 1985, (should be June 3, 1985) as evidenced by date of
receipt stamped thereon by the Office of the Provincial Sheriff (Exhibit 3-A),
and, accordingly, the sheriff’s fees were also paid on June 4, 1985, as of the
filing thereof (Exhibit 3-B and Exhibit 3-C). 
Such being the case, the claim of the respondent that he came to know
the complainant for the first time only during the first week of June, 1985, is more probable and easier to believe
because the writ of execution (Exhibit 3) was received by the Office of the
Provincial Sheriff only on June 3, 1985 (Exhibit 3-A) not before.  And, evidence is bare to show that the
respondent received the writ of execution earlier than June 3, 1985 and tried to implement the writ of
execution before it was received by the Office of Provincial Sheriff on June 3, 1985.  Such being the case, the version of the
complainant that in the month of May 1985 the respondent received from him on
different dates the total amount of P6,275.00 of which he recorded them on his
May, 1985 calendar (Exhibit A, Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3, also marked as
Exhibit 4, Exhibits 4-A, 4-B and 4-C, respectively)), aside from being hearsay
pieces of evidence, they are also unreliable because in the month of May, 1985,
the complainant and the respondent were not yet known to each other.  Hence,
there was no occasion in May 1985 where the respondent went to the complainant
for the purpose of executing a judgment, and made the promise to help the
complainant avoid execution insofar as it refers to complainant’s truck and
ricemill, or that the respondent received from the complainant the total amount
of P6,275.00 as recorded in the May 1985 calendar.

“Even the newly discovered evidences presented by the
complainant, consisting of the notarial reports of Notary Public Pedro N. Nale,
which show that the Deed of Sale of Ricemill ‘Kiskisan’, dated March 14, 1984,
(Exhibit C) were not notarized by said notary public (Exhibit V, Exhibit V-1,
Exhibit W, Exhibit W-1, Exhibit W-2 and Exhibit W-3, appearing on Pages 223 to
228 of the records), do not give added weight to the claim of the complainant
that it was in the month of May 1985 when the respondent suggested to the complainant
that fictitious deeds of sale of said properties be executed by the complainant
to spare them from execution allegedly upon the advise of the respondent.  It is too weak and unreliable for the same reason that it was only sometime on June 8, 1985 when the respondent came
to know the complainant for the
first time.  The inevitable conclusion is that the respondent could not have
instigated or advised the complainant to execute said fictitious deeds of sale on the month of May 1985, in
order that the properties subject thereof may
not be subject of execution.” (Rollo,
pp. 256-258)

As to the second charge:

“The claim of the complainant that the subject certificate of
the title was received from him by the respondent, which the latter delivered
to the mortgagor, Mr. Motos, without complainant’s consent of authority, aside from being
vehemently denied by the respondent was easily overturned by the clear and
positive testimony of the mortgagor, Mr. Motos, who declared that it was the complainant who returned to him
the certificate of title of the mortgaged property when he went to the complainant and borrowed said title in order
that he could secure a loan and from the proceeds thereof complainant could be
paid his loan, to which the complainant agreed and delivered the title to Mr.
Motos contained in a brown envelope together with the location plan of the
property, the tax declaration and a Deed of Undertaking.  (tsn., pp. 13-14, June 5, 1987).” (Rollo, p. 260)

“The failure of the complainant to deny in his letter-reply
dated July 27, 1986 to the answer-comment of the respondent the specific
allegation of the respondent that the title to the property was given by
complainant to Mr. Motos upon the latter’s request, coupled by the fact that he
did not also rebut the testimony of Mr. Motos when the latter testified in this
case to the same effect, when he had all the opportunity to do so, if the
allegations in respondent’s answer and the oral testimony of Mr. Motos are not true, give
credence to the claim of the
respondent and Mr. Motos that it was the complainant himself who delivered the
certificate of title to Mr. Motos in order that the latter could make use of
the same in securing for a loan
and from the proceeds thereof the complainant could be paid.

As the evidence of the parties stand on the second charge in the
letter-complaint, we are not persuaded
to believe the imputation made by the complainant against the respondent is
sufficiently established by his evidence. 
Hence, the respondent must perforce be also cleared of the second charge
in the letter-complaint.” (Rollo, p. 261)

The factual findings of the Investigating Judge are accepted by
this Court in the absence of a showing that matters of substance were either
disregarded or overlooked.  Moreover, the
Executive Judge, although he recommended the dismissal of the two charges
against the respondent in view of insufficiency of the complainant’s evidence,
found that the respondent had committed irregular acts and conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service in violation of Section 36(b) sub-par. (27)
of PD 807 otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines.

The above conclusion was based on the respondent’s own oral
testimony, his answer to the letter-complaint of the complainant and the
testimony of Mr. Motos, the respondent’s own witness.  The Executive Judge reported that:

xxx                               xxx                               xxx

“The act of the respondent in performing acts of collecting a
loan from a mortgagor at the instance
of the complainant-mortgagee, is an act that is incompatible with the position
and function of the respondent as deputy sheriff of the court, considering that
the foreclosure of said mortagage may finally be pursued in the ordinary course
of the law and the office of the
sheriff would be called upon officially in connection with the foreclosure of
the mortgaged property.  A more credible
and orderly administration of justice cannot countenance this conduct of the
respondent, especially considering that in going to the mortgagor, Mr. Motos,
to collect the loan, he introduced himself as one among the employees of the
Hall of Justice.

The respondent, in introducing himself to the mortgagor as an
‘employee of the Hall of Justice’ or ‘employee of the court,’ could not have
been resorted to by the respondent except to produce the calculated effect of
impressing upon the mortgagor that he was acting with authority under the
law.” (Rollo, pp. 262-263)

The Executive Judge stated that while this specific charge was
not made by the complainant in his letter-complaint against the respondent, it
came out in the course of the investigation and should be acted upon.  He then, recommended that the respondent be
reprimanded for his conduct.

This Court agrees with the above findings and recommendation of
the Executive Judge except for the penalty he meted out for the respondent’s
acts of collecting a loan from a mortgagor at the instance of the complainant-mortgagee.

This Court has repeatedly stressed that the conduct and behavior
of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation
of justice, like the courts below, from the presiding judge to the sheriff and
deputy sheriff to the lowest clerk should be circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility.  His conduct,
at all time, must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum but
above all else must be above suspicion.  (Jereos, Jr., v. Reblando, Sr. 71 SCRA 126, 131–132 [1976]).

The actuations of the respondent in collecting from Mr. Motos
what the latter owed to the complainant, even if with an alleged verbal
authority constitutes a clear case
of intervention in a private
transaction which would directly or indirectly involve the respondent’s
official position as his office might eventually be called upon, in case a
litigation can no longer be avoided and the execution of judgment is
proper.  In fact, the respondent stated
in his answer that he had already prepared the application for foreclosure of
real estate mortgage at the request of the complainant but this was not filed
as the complainant’s wife said that
an arrangement has been reached by the complainant and Mr. Motos.  (Rollo,
p. 14) Such act is clearly incompatible with the respondent’s official
functions.

This misconduct is aggravated by the fact that the respondent
introduced himself as an employee of the Court (TSN, June 22, 1987, pp.
7-10).  This was done by him in order to
impress upon the mortgagor that he was acting with authority under the law.

The respondent has abused his position in showing undue personal
interest in the transaction raising the question that he might have had hope of
pecuniary gain as the respondent
himself admitted in his answer that the complainant promised to reward him with
some amount if he will be able to collect from Mr. Motos.  (Rollo,
p. 14)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the penalty of six (6)
months suspension without pay, the
period of which should not be charged to his accumulated leave is imposed on
respondent Gaudioso Borja, Deputy
Sheriff of RTC Branch 19, Naga City for conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, with a warning that a repetition of the same or of
acts calling for disciplinary action will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), and
Bidin, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.