EN BANC
|
PAG-IBIG FUND, represented by MARIETTA
B. BRITANICO, Complainant, - versus - MANUEL L. ARIMADO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-06-2197 [Formerly A.M. No. OCA I.P.I. 05-2254-P] Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING,* YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Marietta B. Britanico, Regional
Manager of Home Development Mutual Fund (PAG-IBIG) in Legazpi City, charged
Manuel L. Arimado, Sheriff IV of Branch 4, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Legazpi
City (respondent), in a July 29, 2005 Affidavit-Complaint,[1]
with “misfeasance and malicious nonfeasance in office.”[2]
Gathered from the rollo are the following facts which spawned the filing of the
present administrative complaint:
PAG-IBIG caused
the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage on the property of one Venus
Rosauro. The property was sold at public auction by respondent on P272,000.00.[3]
Respondent received the said amount on
even date for which he issued a receipt,[4]
and deposited it with the Office of the Clerk of Court. He subsequently withdrew the amount, however,
upon the representation that he would deliver it to PAG-IBIG.[5]
Respondent did not remit the amount to
PAG-IBIG, however.
As the
period for redemption of the mortgage lapsed without the mortgagor exercising
the right of redemption, See sought to possess the property by filing a
complaint for specific performance with damages against PAG-IBIG and respondent.
During the pendency of the complaint for
specific performance or on
3. Respondent
Manuel L. Arimado[,] due to urgent financial need[,] acknowledged that he
personally used the money paid to him by plaintiffs which represents the
bid price of the above mentioned [sic]
property subject of the foreclosure sale. The bid price should have been delivered/paid by Respondent Arimado to
Home Development Mutual Fund (PAG-IBIG) as payment and in satisfaction of its
mortgage claim.
4. Respondent Manuel L. Arimado obligates
himself to pay in cash to his co-defendant Home Development Mutual Fund
(PAG-IBIG) the amount of P272,000.00 representing full payment of
its claim on or before P28,000.00 shall likewise be paid by defendant Arimado to the
plaintiffs as reimbursement for litigation expenses.[7]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
By Decision
of
It appears that respondent welched on
his obligation under the Compromise Agreement; hence, the present
administrative complaint.
In his September
9, 2005 Comment[9]
on the Complaint, respondent averred that after the auction sale of the
property, he prepared the Certificate of Sale and tried to deliver the P272,000.00
bid price to PAG-IBIG, but it “was not accepted for no apparent reason,” prompting
him to deposit the same with the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Legazpi
City.
Respondent further averred that “when [his]
request for financial assistance[10]
was denied after [he] was assured that it would be granted[,] and after [his]
wife had already accumulated hospital expenses, [he] was forced to utilize the
amount [to pay the hospital] expenses.”[11]
Respondent added that he was aware that
he was in a “delicate situation,” but he had no recourse but to save his ailing
wife’s life.[12]
Respondent furthermore averred that
his request to pay the amount on installment was approved by the PAG-IBIG
Regional Office, but when he was tendering the first payment, it was rejected.
The parties having been given the
opportunity to be heard, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), after evaluating
the case,[13]
recommended that respondent be dismissed from the service for dishonesty with
forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leaves, and with perpetual
disqualification for reemployment in the government service including
government owned and controlled corporations.[14]
The recommendation of the OCA is
well-taken.
Admittedly, respondent misappropriated
the money entrusted to him by reason of his office. Such act degrades public confidence and casts
distrust in an institution which guards society against criminality and
impropriety in the public service. His
willingness to pay the misappropriated amount neither exonerates him nor
mitigates his liability.
The conduct, as well as behavior, of
every officer or employee connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice is circumscribed
with a heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only
be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above
suspicion.[15]
This is not the first time that
respondent was administratively faulted.
On three occasions,[16]
he was suspended from the service for misconduct in office.
Respondent’s incorrigible character reflects
not only a high degree of impropriety and unprofessionalism but offends the constitutional
tenet of a public office being a public trust.
His obstinacy in being bound by the ethical standards which public officers
and employees must uphold evinces his
unfitness to continue his service any longer, not only in the judiciary which expects
no less than the highest ethical standards from its employees, but also in
other branches of the government including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
Under Section 52(A)(1) of the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty, which is classified
as a grave offense, is penalized by dismissal, even for first-time offenders. Section 58(a) of the same Rules provides that
the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the “cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture
of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in
the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.”
WHEREFORE, respondent MANUEL L.
ARIMADO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4,
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
(ON LEAVE)
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN
T. REYES Associate Justice |
* On Leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Ibid.
[8]
[9]
[10] From whom, respondent did not specify.
[11] Rollo, p. 18.
[12] Ibid.
[13]
[14]
[15] Sy v. Academia, A.M. No. P-87-72 and A.M. No. P-90-481,
[16] In Macinas
v. Arimado (A.M.
No. P-04-1869, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 162), respondent was suspended by
this Court for one (1) month and one (1) day for simple misconduct for having
asked for and received from the complainant therein the amount of P10,000.00
on the assurance that he would secure her bail bonds in the criminal cases
pending against her. In Letter of Atty. Socorro M. Villamer-Basilla,
Clerk of Court V, RTC, Br. 4, Legazpi City, (A.M.
No. P-06-2128, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 455), respondent was also suspended for one (1) month for simple
misconduct in office for receiving an amount from the plaintiffs in a civil
case for expenses to be incurred in the execution of a writ of preliminary
attachment, without making an estimate thereof and securing prior approval of
the court issuing the writ. And in Martillano v. Arimado, (A.M. No. P-06-2134, August 9, 2006,
498 SCRA 240), respondent was suspended
without pay for two (2) months for simple misconduct for having received from
the complainant therein the amount of P2,500.00
upon his representation that he would assist him in settling a criminal
complaint filed against the complainant.