Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > January 1989 Decisions > A.M. No. P-88-181 January 31, 1989 - ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON v. MATEO MAGBANUA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. P-88-181. January 31, 1989.]

JUDGE ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY SHERIFF MATEO MAGBANUA, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A DEPUTY SHERIFF; LIABILITY FOR COLLECTING AMOUNTS IN LIEU OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF REPLEVIN. — There is no doubt that respondent’s actuations constitute gross dishonesty which renders him unfit to hold a responsible position in the judicial branch of government. His acts are characterized by lack of truth, honesty and probity that make him an untrustworthy public servant. He acted beyond the scope of his ministerial duty to enforce a writ of replevin when instead of taking the property subject of the writ of replevin, he collected amounts purportedly in payment of fifty percent of the amount due and demandable. Not only that, he likewise collected amounts totalling P800.00 for his services. Then, it took him more than five months to make a return. Such delay is indicative of the malicious intent on the part of respondent to misappropriate the amount. Noteworthy, too, is the failure of respondent to manifest an intention to return the same now that defendant had complained.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:



In a complaint 1 filed by Judge Roberto Chiongson, MTCC, Branch 3, of Bacolod City, herein respondent Deputy Sheriff Mateo Magbanua, is charged with violation of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for Dishonesty.

Judge Chiongson averred that on July 3, 1987, an order for the delivery of personal property was issued in Civil Case No. 17055 entitled "Philacor Credit Corporation v. Spouses Carlos and Luisa Javelona." On August 10, 1987, the writ together with the summons and the complaint were served upon defendants by Respondent. The latter did not immediately make a return of service and it was only after he was threatened with sanctions that he submitted a return 2 on January 15, 1988. Because the writ was returned unsatisfied, an alias writ was issued upon plaintiffs request and the same was served by another sheriff. It was then when defendant Luisa Javelona complained that she had paid plaintiff Philacor, thru respondent the sum of P1,800.00. Apparently, this amount was not turned over to plaintiff Philacor nor reported by respondent in his return.

Judge Chiongson incorporated in his complaint the affidavit 3 of Mrs. Luisa Javelona stating that on the date respondent served the summons and the complaint, the latter demanded the amount of P2,000.00 for payment to plaintiff Philacor. She then gave P1,000.00, receipt of which was acknowledged by Respondent. 4 A week after, respondent went to see her to collect the balance. Again, she gave P1,000.00 to respondent but told him to deduct P200.00 therefrom as payment for his services. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the P800.00 at the back of the same receipt he issued for the first P1,000.00 he earlier received. However, in acknowledging receipt of the P800.00, Mrs. Javelona noticed that respondent wrote the words "three hundred pesos" but the amount in figures was P800.00. She also claimed that when respondent went to see her in connection with the aforementioned civil case, respondent always asked for reimbursement of his expenses and that all in all she had given him the amount of P800.00.

In a resolution dated May 16, 1988, this Court resolved to require respondent to submit his answer and in the meantime suspended him from office, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court.

In his answer, 5 respondent admitted that he served the summons and the complaint to defendants. He asserted that, he did not make the return immediately because the writ of replevin was not complied with as the subject thereof could not be located. He also admitted that he received P1,000.00 from Mrs. Javelona for payment to plaintiff Philacor. However, he countered that since plaintiff Philacor refused to accept said amount, Mrs. Javelona requested him to safely keep the same until she could raise the required amount of P3,000.00 which was fifty percent of the amount due and collectible.chanrobles law library : red

Considering that the records sufficiently provide a basis for determination of respondent’s administrative liability, there is no need to conduct a further investigation of the charges.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that respondent was authorized ONLY to enforce the writ of replevin and to serve upon defendants, copy of the summons and the complaint. It is surprising why respondent accepted the amount in lieu of the property subject of the replevin. This act is definitely beyond his ministerial duty as a sheriff. Secondly, respondent’s contention that the amount of P1,000.00 which he allegedly received from Mrs. Javelona was entrusted to him for safekeeping until the alleged amount required by plaintiff Philacor could be raised, does not inspire belief and defies reason. This contention is patently a mere devious excuse for the unauthorized act of collecting the amount, and thereafter keeping the same to the damage of Mrs. Javelona.

In addition, respondent failed to account for the amount of P800.00 or P300.00, as the case may be, receipt of which he acknowledged at the back of the receipt for the P1,000.00 he first received from Mrs. Javelona. This Court is of the belief that he intentionally wrote the words "three hundred pesos" and the figures P800.00 purposely to deceive defendants into conceding later that he only received P300.00 having in mind that in interpreting the receipt, the amount stated in words will be controlling. However, since he did not specifically deny having collected from Mrs. Javelona for the second time, he is deemed to have admitted this allegation of Mrs. Javelona that she gave him P1,000.00, P800.00 of which is to be applied to her account with Philacor while the remaining P200.00 may be applied for his expense.

There is no doubt that respondent’s actuations constitute gross dishonesty which renders him unfit to hold a responsible position in the judicial branch of government. His acts are characterized by lack of truth, honesty and probity that make him an untrustworthy public servant. He acted beyond the scope of his ministerial duty to enforce a writ of replevin when instead of taking the property subject of the writ of replevin, he collected amounts purportedly in payment of fifty percent of the amount due and demandable. Not only that, he likewise collected amounts totalling P800.00 for his services. Then, it took him more than five months to make a return. Such delay is indicative of the malicious intent on the part of respondent to misappropriate the amount. Noteworthy, too, is the failure of respondent to manifest an intention to return the same now that defendant had complained.

In Ganaden v. Bolasco, A.M. P-124, May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 50, respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff received certain amounts in connection with the performance of his duties as deputy Sheriff without issuing the corresponding official receipts therefor and gave only his private receipt. The Court therein held that respondent committed illegal exaction penalized by paragraph 2(b) of Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code for failure to issue receipts for money collected by him officially, and violation of Sec. 113 of Art. III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual. The total amount received by respondent for Sheriff’s fee for service of complaint and for service of a writ of execution was P62.60. Respondent therein was likewise found guilty of dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and was ordered dismissed from the service.chanrobles law library : red

In Abdulwahid v. Reyes, A.M. P-902 and P-906, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 213, the Court dismissed from the service the respondent Deputy Sheriff for serious misconduct, and one of the acts committed by him was the misappropriation of certain amounts he received in his official capacity for which he issued only his private receipts and which amounts he returned only after the filing of the administrative case.

In Abejaron v. Panes, A.M. P-1158, August 1, 1978, 84 SCRA 494, this Court held that the conduct of respondent sheriff in misappropriating amount received by him from the judgment debtor to the damage and prejudice of the judgment creditor and failure to levy on the property of the judgment debtor and his wife to satisfy the judgment against them constitute malicious nonfeasance in office and gross dishonesty which render him unfit to hold a public office. He was ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Deputy Sheriff Mateo Magbanua is found guilty of gross dishonesty and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of his retirement benefits except his accrued leave, if any, and with prejudice to reinstatement in the government.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Page 1, Rollo.

2. Page 3, Rollo.

3. Pages 4-5, Rollo.

4. Page 6, Rollo.

5. Page 12, Rollo.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78315 January 2, 1989 - COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 72806 January 9, 1989 - EPIFANIO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLANT COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74806 January 9, 1989 - SM AGRI AND GENERAL MACHINERIES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76761 January 9, 1989 - ASST. EXECUTIVE SEC. FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS. v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 79123-25 January 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELIANO TRINIDAD

  • G.R. No. 78169 January 12, 1989 - BIBIANO REYNOSO IV v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 43862 January 13, 1989 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO.

  • G.R. No. 47425 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. METODIO S. BASIGA

  • G.R. No. 51554 January 13, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. 53955 January 13, 1989 - MANILA BANKING CORP. v. ANASTACIO TEODORO JR.

  • G.R. No. 54330 January 13, 1989 - JULIO E. T. SALES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 66712 January 13, 1989 - CALIXTO ANGEL v. PONCIANO C. INOPIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 66865 January 13, 1989 - MAGTANGGOL QUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74047 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO E. GENEVEZA

  • G.R. No. 75016 January 13, 1989 - PERLA C. BAUTISTA v. BOARD OF ENERGY

  • G.R. No. 76592 January 13, 1989 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77298 January 13, 1989 - ANGELES CENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79518 January 13, 1989 - REBECCA C. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 36187 January 17, 1989 - REYNOLDS PHILIPPINE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 73835 January 17, 1989 - CHINA AIRLINES, LTD. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 33425 January 20, 1989 - PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 42278 January 20, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 48008 January 20, 1989 - BARTOLOME MACARAEG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49739 January 20, 1989 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 55457 January 20, 1989 - FILOMENO QUILLIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 61167-68 January 20, 1989 - FIDEL A. DE GUZMAN v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO BENITEZ

  • G.R. No. 66350 January 20, 1989 - ALBERTO DE GUZMAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67115 January 20, 1989 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74249 January 20, 1989 - CORNELIO T. RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74679 January 20, 1989 - ROSITA DE ASIS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78524 January 20, 1989 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83616 January 20, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 72306 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 78648 January 24, 1989 - RAFAEL N. NUNAL v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83882 January 24, 1989 - IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU v. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

  • A.C. No. 3277 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 33955 January 26, 1989 - FORTUNATO DA. BONDOC v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 34613 January 26, 1989 - ANTONIO J. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 40778 January 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCILLO MANLOLO

  • G.R. Nos. 44715-16 January 26, 1989 - ERLINDA BARRERAS v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 49410 January 26, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51214 January 26, 1989 - EDGARDO DORUELO v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. 66807 January 26, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELITONA ALAGAD

  • G.R. No. 74246 January 26, 1989 - MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75079 January 26, 1989 - SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA v. WENCESLAO M. POLO

  • G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 - JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA v. IGNACIO ALMODOVAR

  • G.R. No. 75439 January 26, 1989 - SILVINO P. PIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 80680 January 26, 1989 - DANILO B. TABAS v. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 81816 January 26, 1989 - NATIVIDAD Q. SALOMON v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

  • A.M. No. R-225-RTJ January 26, 1989 - HIMINIANO D. SILVA v. GERMAN G. LEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 29541 January 27, 1989 - CARLOS GABILA v. PABLO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 47027 January 27, 1989 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50041 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO L. ABONADA

  • G.R. No. 56457 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO PEDROSA

  • G.R. No. 56524 January 24, 1989 - RAMON ARENAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79404 January 27, 1989 - FELICIANO BEJER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989 - NELSON L. CERVANTES v. GINA C. FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 29184 January 30, 1989 - BENEDICTO LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37704 January 30, 1989 - ERLINDA TALAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 44466 January 30, 1989 - MAGDALENA V. ACOSTA v. ANDRES B. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 70149 January 30, 1989 - EUSEBIO C. LU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 - INT’L CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74423 January 30, 1989 - EUSTAQUIO BAEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78298 January 30, 1989 - WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42808 January 31, 1989 - ROSARIO VDA. DE SUANES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 43602 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAILANO

  • G.R. No. 46807 January 31, 1989 - MAURO OMANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 48066 January 31, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. KALAHI INVESTMENTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 56705 January 31, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG CORP.

  • G.R. No. 58797 January 31, 1989 - ANTONIO QUIRINO v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. Nos. 65345-47 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 66178-79 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PELOTIN

  • G.R. No. 70446 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989 - DAN FUE LEUNG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72828 January 31, 1989 - ESTELITA S. MONZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989 - JOHN C. QUIRANTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73913 January 31, 1989 - JERRY T. MOLES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75082 January 31, 1989 - JOSE F. PUZON v. ALEJANDRA ABELLERA

  • G.R. No. 75853 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES BUGTONG

  • G.R. No. 76988 January 31, 1989 - GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORP. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77116 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND CAMALOG

  • G.R. No. 78687 January 31, 1989 - ELENA SALENILLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79570 January 31, 1989 - GASPAR MEDIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83268 January 31, 1989 - JOSEFINA B. CALLANGAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84423 January 31, 1989 - JOSE B. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-181 January 31, 1989 - ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON v. MATEO MAGBANUA