ATTY. FRANCISCO E. ANTONIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. RODRIGO E. DIAZ, DEPUTY SHERIFF, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ISABELA, BASILAN, RESPONDENT.

Respondent, Rodrigo E. Diaz, Deputy Sheriff, Court of First
Instance, Isabela, Basilan,
was charged on February 23, 1977
by Atty. Francisco E. Antonio, a practising lawyer in
Zamboanga City
for conduct unbecoming of a government and public official alleging that:

“I was the counsel for the claimant in WCC Case No. ROX-321-73
(Labor Regional Office No. 9, Zamboanga City),
entitled ‘CARLOTA ALANO RIVERO, Claimant, vs. CITY OF BASILAN, represented by
the Mayor, and DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, represented by the Secretary,
Respondents.’ The claimant won in said case, and she was awarded the sum of
P3,320.00 as compensation for the death of her husband, and I was awarded the
sum of P420.00 as my attorney’s fee.

“By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), Department of Labor, Regional Office No. 9, Zamboanga City,
said Rodrigo Diaz, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Basilan,
executed the decision.  He collected my
attorney’s fee of P420.00 from the Province
of Basilan.

“On August 18, 1976,
said Rodrigo Diaz appeared in my law office at Room 211, German
Wee Sit Building,
Zamboanga City,
and he handed to me only the amount of P220.00 as my attorney’s fee in said
case.  I got furious, and I demanded from
him the missing P200.00 but he said he had taken it and he had used it.  Whereupon, I asked him to sign a written
confession or admission, which he did freely and voluntarily.

“Mr. Diaz committed the act above-mentioned without my
knowledge or consent.

“In view whereof, I respectfully request that said Rodrigo
Diaz be investigated, and thereafter, to terminate him from service, with
forfeiture of benefits.”^[1]

In compliance with the 1st Indorsement^[2]
of the Acting Judicial Consultant, dated March 15, 1977, requiring him to comment on the charges
against him, respondent admitted “all the allegations in the
complaint” invoking, however, certain extenuating and/or mitigating
circumstances.^[3]

Thereafter, or on August 2, 1977, the complainant executed an
Affidavit of Desistance^[4]
on the ground that “Mr. Diaz (the respondent) approached me last July 29,
1977, at Isabela, Basilan
Province, and he paid me the sum of Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos, Philippine
Currency, as payment of the sum of money which is mentioned in my complaint
addressed to the Honorable Supreme Court dated February 23, 1977″ and that
“Mr. Diaz explained to me the reasons and circumstances for his use of
said money.”

In view of the admission by the respondent of the act complained
of, we see no necessity for a further investigation of this case.

The act of respondent in appropriating for his own personal use
part of the attorney’s fee of complainant which respondent, in the performance
of his duty as deputy sheriff, collected from the Province
of Basilan,
constitutes a grave misconduct which is one of the grounds for disciplinary
action under the applicable civil service law.^[5]
The desistance of the complainant, as in this case does not bar the taking of
disciplinary action against the respondent.^[6]
Neither does it dissuade the Court from imposing the appropriate disciplinary
sanction against the respondent.  One who
occupies a public position, especially in an office connected with the administration
of justice and the execution of judgments, must at all times be free from the
appearance of impropriety.^[7]

The Court finds and holds respondent Rodrigo Diaz guilty of grave
misconduct; but considering that this is his first offense during his long
service in the judicial branch of the government which covers a period of more
than 21 years, the Court is inclined to be lenient in this instance.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court imposes upon respondent a fine
equivalent to his salary for three (3) months, with warning that any repetition
of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Complaint, page 10-11, Record.

^[2]
Page 17, Record.

^[3]
Pages 5-6, Record.

^[4]
Page 4, Record.

^[5]
See P.D. 809, Article IX, section 36.

^[6]
Espayos vs. Lee, Adm. Matter No. 1574-MJ, April 30, 1979.

^[7]
Gutierrez, et al. vs. Fernandez, Adm. Case No. P-165, August 18, 1975.