MACARIO S. FLORES, COMPLAINANT, VS. NONILON A. CANIYA, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, IMUS, CAVITE, RESPONDENT.

Flores versus Caniya

The Case

This is an administrative matter brought by Macario S. Flores against Nonilon A. Caniya, a Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite. Flores complains that the sheriff failed to turn over to him money paid by a judgment debtor in a civil case for a sum of money. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for sheriffs who hold money in trust for litigants, and because it teaches that administrative complaints are not private in nature and cannot be withdrawn at the complainant's whim.

Procedural History

The complainant wrote a letter to the Court Administrator, who required the respondent sheriff to comment. After the comment and the complainant's reply, the Supreme Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Lucenito N. Tagle of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite for investigation, report and recommendation. The investigating judge found the respondent's excuse flimsy, concluded that he had appropriated money held only in trust, and recommended dismissal from the service. The Court then referred the investigation report to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation, and the Deputy Court Administrator affirmed the findings and echoed the recommendation for dismissal. The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, attaching the complainant's sworn affidavit of desistance. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative jurisdiction.

Facts

Macario S. Flores obtained a favorable judgment in a civil action for a sum of money against Romy Perez. A writ of execution was issued to satisfy the judgment. On four dates in the second half of 1994, the respondent sheriff received from the judgment debtor a total of nine thousand pesos as payment for the judgment debt, broken down as three thousand pesos, three thousand pesos, one thousand five hundred pesos, and one thousand five hundred pesos. He issued no official receipts; the payments appeared only in handwritten receipts.

Of the nine thousand pesos, only six thousand pesos was tendered to Flores. The complainant brought the matter to the Court Administrator. The respondent explained that he could not immediately turn over the three thousand pesos received in August 1994 because the complainant was never around when he came by the office, and he assured the Court that he had already turned the amount over in January 1995.

The complainant refuted this, saying the sheriff was always in the office and kept telling him he had not yet collected from the debtor when the money was already in his hands. The complainant admitted that the sheriff later tendered two thousand nine hundred pesos, one hundred pesos short, because the sheriff had kept the difference for transportation expenses. The investigating judge found that the respondent had held the three thousand pesos for several months, that his excuse was flimsy, and that he should have deposited the money with the Clerk of Court if he could not reach the complainant. The Court also noted a prior administrative case in which the respondent had been suspended for three months for using property in custodia legis for his own benefit.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to turn over money received in the course of executing a writ.
• Whether or not the complainant's affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss bar the Court from proceeding with the administrative case.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal is warranted despite the respondent's long years in government service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Article Eleven of the Constitution provides:

Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

The Court invokes this as the standard the respondent violated when he treated money entrusted to him as his own.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent had the intent to appropriate the money for his personal use. It took him more than six months to turn over the three thousand pesos, and only after the complainant had initiated the complaint. The Court concluded that the undue delay led to one inescapable conclusion: he had misappropriated the amount entrusted to him. His failure to issue official receipts violated the General Auditing and Accounting Rules, and this ineptitude supported the conclusion that he wanted to misappropriate the money. These acts constituted grave misconduct and gross dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and to the best interest of the service, and gross neglect of duty. The Court reminded that everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the sheriff and the lowliest clerk, must conduct himself with propriety and decorum, and his actions must be beyond suspicion.

On the second issue, the Court refused to give effect to the desistance. It held that administrative cases against public officers are not private in nature but are impressed with public interest, for they relate to public office, which is a public trust. Once the Court has taken cognizance of such a complaint, the complainant is no longer at liberty to dismiss or withdraw it. Such withdrawal could only invite suspicions that the complaint was not filed with sincerity of purpose.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent's more than twenty-six years in government service would not tilt the balance in his favor. It observed that he had not learned his lesson from his prior suspension, and that he no longer deserved to stay in the service a minute more.

Doctrine

A sheriff who receives money in the course of executing a writ holds it in trust for the judgment creditor. He must turn it over promptly, issue official receipts, and if he cannot reach the creditor, deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court. Failure to do so amounts to misappropriation and constitutes grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Administrative complaints against public officers are not private in nature; they are impressed with public interest and cannot be withdrawn by the complainant after the Court has taken cognizance of them. Length of service does not mitigate a clear violation of the public trust.

Disposition

The Court declared the respondent sheriff guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize the line that public office is a public trust and that administrative cases are not private in nature and cannot be withdrawn by desistance. Examiners use this case to test the standard of conduct for sheriffs and the effect of an affidavit of desistance in administrative proceedings.