Office of the Court Administrator v. Anquilo, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Leandro Anquilo, Jr. for grave misconduct. The complaint stemmed from Anquilo's actions in implementing a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 50777. On August 8, 1989, Anquilo received a check for P16,948.39 as partial payment of the judgment debt and collected P2,000.00 as partial payment for his services, issuing a receipt. On August 14, 1989, Anquilo submitted a Sheriff's Report stating he had collected P21,806.12 in full satisfaction of the debt. The following day, August 15, 1989, Anquilo encashed another check for P8,500.00, intended for the judgment debt, and kept the money. Procedural History: The bank's assistant manager, Teofilo M. Pugeda, learned of the P8,500.00 payment and, through letters dated October 9, 1989, and November 6, 1989, demanded remittance of both the P8,500.00 and the P2,000.00 sheriff's fees. Pugeda subsequently filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, which recommended charging Anquilo with estafa and falsification. The Ombudsman later dismissed the complaint upon Pugeda's withdrawal after Anquilo remitted the P8,500.00. The administrative case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal from the service. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by the Office of the Court Administrator against Deputy Sheriff Leandro Anquilo, Jr. for grave misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Leandro Anquilo, Jr. committed grave misconduct. Whether the dismissal of the criminal complaint by the Ombudsman bars administrative sanctions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Deputy Sheriff Leandro Anquilo, Jr. guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and prejudice to re-employment in government service. The Court held that the dismissal of the criminal case by the Ombudsman did not bar administrative sanctions.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Leandro Anquilo, Jr. committed grave misconduct: The Court found that the respondent committed grave misconduct. He stated in a Sheriff's Report that he had collected P21,806.12 in full satisfaction of the judgment debt, when in fact he had only transmitted P16,948.39 to the complainant bank. Furthermore, he encashed a second check for P8,500.00 intended for the judgment debt and kept the money, failing to remit it to the bank. The Court noted that the respondent only offered to deliver the P8,500.00 after a complaint was lodged against him with the Office of the Ombudsman. His defense that he kept the money in his desk because the Branch Clerk of Court refused to accept it lacked any iota of evidence. The Investigating Judge's finding that the respondent intended to defraud and in fact defrauded the complainant bank in the amount of P8,500.00 was supported by the evidence. The respondent's untruthful return on the writ of execution, coupled with his failure to remit the second collection, clearly demonstrated his intent to appropriate the funds personally. On whether the dismissal of the criminal complaint by the Ombudsman bars administrative sanctions: The Court held that the dismissal of the criminal case is not per se a bar to administrative sanctions when called for by the malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance of a public officer. The dismissal of the Ombudsman case was based mainly on the desistance of the complainant after the respondent remitted the P8,500.00. The Court emphasized that the payment made by the respondent after two years from the time he should have turned over his collection to the bank does not erase his administrative liability for misconduct. On the contrary, it bolsters the charge that he withheld the funds and was compelled to remit them only when the bank filed a complaint. The Court cited Hipolito v. Mergas (195 SCRA 6 [1991]) in support of this principle.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a criminal case does not preclude administrative sanctions for malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance of a public officer. Payment of collected funds after a complaint is filed does not erase administrative liability for misconduct; rather, it bolsters the charge that the funds were withheld and remitted only upon institution of proceedings.