THIRD DIVISION
SUSANA E. FLORES,
A.M. No. P-06-2130
Complainant, (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1946-P)
Present:
CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
- versus - VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO,
JJ.
Promulgated:
June 13, 2011
ARIEL D. PASCASIO, Sheriff III,
MTCC,
Branch 5,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
This
is an administrative complaint filed by Susana E. Flores (complainant) against Ariel R. Pascasio (respondent), Sheriff III in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5,
In
her complaint-affidavit dated P10,200.00) for the two (2) items.
During the public auction, the two items were sold separately, the JVC DVD
player for P2,520.00 and the Sony TV set for P2,500.00. The
complainant claimed that the respondent manipulated the bidding process to make
it appear that she submitted a bid of only One Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P1,200.00)
instead of her bid of Ten Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (P10,200.00). She
further alleged that the respondent even scolded her for questioning the
conduct of the auction sale. According to her, when she asked the respondent
why she lost the bidding, he replied, Wala
kang magagawa dahil ako ang masusunod dito. Ako ang sheriff dito, kung kanino
ko gustong mapunta and items, yun ang masusunod.[1]
In
his comment[2] dated
In
an Evaluation Report dated
The respondent stated in his Minutes
of the Auction Sale that the complainant submitted a bid only for the DVD in
the amount of P1,200.00. But based on the certified photocopies of the
bids of all those who participated in the auction sale, complainants bid of P10,200.00
for the two items was the highest. It must be remembered that this Court has
countless times reiterated that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected
with an office charged with the dispensation of justice must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but above else (sic) must be above
suspicion.
The conduct of the respondent in disregarding the highest bid of the complainant and his making a false entry in the minutes of the auction sale is clearly an act of dishonesty which erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary.[4]
The OCA recommended:
1. That the instant administrative complaint be REDOCKETED as a result administrative matter;
2. That Sheriff Ariel R. Pascasio be found GUILTY of Dishonesty in the performance of his official duties; and
3. That Sheriff Pascasio be SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) months and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.[5]
Pursuant to the OCAs recommendation,
the Court, in a Resolution dated
On P2,000.00. Finally, on
In a Resolution dated
In a memorandum dated
The Court agrees with the OCA that
the respondent has been accorded due process when he was required to comment on
the complaint during the preliminary investigation of the charges against him.
While it is true that continued investigation is no longer feasible, the
pleadings submitted by both parties are uncontroverted and their submitted
evidence are sufficient to determine the respondents culpability. The respondent filed his comment on the
complaint against him. Clearly, he was afforded an opportunity to be heard
through his pleadings; hence, his right to due process was not impaired.
The OCA found the respondent guilty
of dishonesty in the performance of official duty instead of grave misconduct and
grave abuse of authority as charged. As the penalty of suspension is no longer
feasible in view of the respondents dismissal from the service, the OCA
recommended that its original recommendation of a two-month suspension be
converted into a payment of a two-month salary.
In support of its finding that the
respondent is guilty of dishonesty, the OCA, in its Evaluation Report of
November 30, 2005, reported that the respondent stated in [the] Minutes of the
Auction Sale that the complainant submitted a bid only for the DVD in the
amount of P1,200.00. On the other hand, the respondent, in his Comment,
claimed that he included the complainants name in the minutes of the auction
sale, but he did not place the amount of her bid as the bid was not itemized. A
perusal of the minutes of the auction sale, attached to the records of the
case, shows that, indeed, the complainants name was included but no amount of
bid was indicated opposite her name. The
bid of P1,200.00 for the DVD corresponds to the person listed as no. 13
among those who submitted bids. The complainants name was listed as no. 14,
the last name on the list. No amount was indicated opposite her name.[13]
While the complainant may have failed
to itemize her bid and to indicate how much she was willing to pay for each
item, it is clear from her bid nevertheless that she was bidding for the two
items at the combined price of P10,200.00 when she listed therein,
Item(s): 1. Sony TV-21 inches [and] 2. DVD-JVC.[14]
In disregarding the bid of the complainant, which was the highest submitted
bid, the respondent violated Section 19, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure which directs that sale of
personal property should be made in such parcels as likely to bring the highest
price. The public auction was conducted by the respondent to sell the
levied personal properties in order to enforce the judgment against the
defendants in Civil Case No. 16-03 of the MTCC of Olongapo City, Branch 4, to
satisfy their indebtedness to the plaintiffs in the amount of P30,000.00.
The respondent sold the personal properties for a total of P5,200.00
only, compared to the complainants bid of P10,200.00. Respondents
failure to consider the complainants bid prejudiced the plaintiffs right to
recover a bigger amount of the defendants indebtedness.
Sheriffs play an important role in
the administration of justice and high standards are expected of them. Their
conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but
must, at all times, be above suspicion.[15] Part of this stringent requirement is that
agents of the law should refrain from the use of abusive, offensive,
scandalous, menacing or otherwise improper language. Judicial employees are
expected to accord due respect, not only to their superiors, but also to others
and their rights at all times. Their every act and word should be characterized
by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.[16]
The respondents arrogant behavior, telling complainant, Wala kang magagawa dahil ako ang masusunod. Ako ang sheriff dito, kung
kanino ko gustong mapunta ang items, yun ang masusunod, was an evident
violation of these rules of conduct for judicial employees.
The Court defines misconduct as any
unlawful conduct, on the part of a
person concerned in the
administration of justice, prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper and
unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[17]
It means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violations of a rule of law or
standard or behavior, especially by a government official.
Dishonesty means a disposition to
lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of
honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; and disposition to
defraud, deceive or betray.[18]
Given
the above parameters, the Court finds the respondent guilty of dishonesty as
recommended by OCA. Under Section 52, B(2), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty is punishable by
dismissal from the service. Since the respondent had previously been ordered
dismissed from the service, suspension is no longer possible. Thus, instead of
suspension, the respondent, shall be imposed a fine as alternative
penalty. We deem the fine equivalent to
three- month salary to be appropriate in light of the penalty of dismissal that
it replaces and the potential damage that his dishonesty caused.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds
the respondent Ariel R. Pascacio, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Branch 5, Olongapo City, GUILTY of
Dishonesty and he is hereby imposed a FINE
in the amount equivalent to his three-month salary, deductible from the money
value of his accrued leave credits, if he has any.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] F.F.I. Dagupan Lending Investors, Inc., etc.
v. Vinez A. Hortaleza, etc., A.M. No. P-05-1952,
[16] Quilo v. Jundarino, A.M. No. P-09-2644,
[17] Quilo v. Jundarino, supra note 16.
[18] Ibid.