Borja v. Angeles

A.M. No. P-94-1057 · 1995-06-02 · J. KAPUNAN, J.: · Primary: Ethics; Secondary: Remedial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: A sworn letter complaint for dishonesty and corruption was filed against respondent Roque Angeles, Deputy Provincial Sheriff, for allegedly collecting P10,000.00 as attorney's fees from a party in a civil case but failing to remit it to the Clerk of Court, allegedly appropriating it instead. Further complaints alleged that the respondent delivered the P10,000.00 to an unauthorized representative and failed to deposit it with the Clerk of Court. Procedural History: The Supreme Court required the respondent to comment. The respondent adopted his answers and exhibits from a pending administrative matter before the Executive Judge of Naga City. The Executive Judge conducted an investigation without a directive from the Supreme Court. The investigation established that the respondent delivered the P10,000.00 to Francisco Ronquillo, who was found to be the authorized representative, and issued a receipt. It was also established that the complainant, Atty. Crispo Borja, Sr., had already been paid his attorney's fees of P5,000.00 in full prior to the execution of the judgment. The Petition: The complainant alleged dishonesty and corruption against the respondent sheriff.

Issue(s)

Whether the respondent sheriff committed dishonesty and corruption by collecting and delivering P10,000.00 as attorney's fees to an authorized representative instead of remitting it to the Clerk of Court. Whether the respondent sheriff is liable for failing to deposit the collected amount with the Clerk of Court, thereby failing to pay the corresponding commission fee.

Ruling

The Court dismissed the administrative charges of dishonesty and corruption against the respondent Deputy Sheriff Roque Angeles. However, he was directed to pay P280.00 representing the commission fee on the P10,000.00 which he failed to deposit with the Clerk of Court. He was given a stern warning against committing similar acts in the future.

Ratio Decidendi

On the charge of dishonesty and corruption for misappropriation: The respondent should be absolved from administrative liability on this charge. The evidence established that Atty. Borja was not entitled to the P10,000.00 as his attorney's fees were P5,000.00 and he had already been paid in full. The P10,000.00 was not misappropriated by the respondent but was delivered to Francisco Ronquillo, one of the defendants and the authorized representative, as evidenced by a receipt. The delivery of the amount collected to the judgment creditor and the fact that the money was not appropriated for the personal use or benefit of the sheriff exonerated him from liability for misappropriation, citing Clemente-De Ocampo v. Reyes, 114 SCRA 596. On the charge of failing to deposit the P10,000.00 with the Clerk of Court: The respondent is liable for this charge. He admitted that he did not deposit the amount but turned it over directly to one of the defendants. Pursuant to Rule 141, Section 9, paragraphs (1) subparagraphs 1 and 2, a commission fee should have been paid on the P10,000.00. The sum of P280.00 would have been paid as a commission fee to form part of the Court's Judicial Development Fund, as per Administrative Circular 31-90. The actuations of the respondent sheriff did not constitute dishonesty and corruption because he did not convert the amount for his personal use or benefit. However, he should have deposited the money in court instead of delivering it directly to the prevailing party. For this failure, the Court admonished him to remain true to his functions as an officer of the court, emphasizing the need for proper and circumspect behavior, integrity, honesty, and uprightness expected of every judiciary employee, especially sheriffs.

Main Doctrine

A sheriff is liable for failure to remit commission fees to the Clerk of Court, even if the principal amount collected was properly delivered to the rightful claimant and not misappropriated for personal gain. However, such failure does not constitute dishonesty or corruption if the principal amount was not converted for personal use.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →