A.M. No. 143. July 31, 1975.
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF APOLINAR O. FLORES, C.F.I., CEBU CITY, IN HIS SUMMARY DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 6 DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1972.

FACTS

Apolinar O. Flores, a former Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Cebu City, was separated from the service when the Secretary of Justice accepted his “resignation” under Presidential Decree No. 6, dated September 27, 1972, and Letter of Instruction No. 14-A. The acceptance was based on the finding that he was “notoriously undesirable” due to dishonesty, specifically for failing to account for various sums of money he had withdrawn in his official capacity for delivery to prevailing parties in several civil cases. Flores appealed to the Civil Service Commission, claiming he was not undesirable, faced no formal charge, and was a victim of injustice.
The appeal was forwarded through channels, ultimately reaching Executive Judge Jose R. Ramolete, who recommended its dismissal. Judge Ramolete opined that Flores was summarily removed under Section 3 of P.D. No. 6 , a disciplinary power vested in Department Heads exercisable without a formal investigation and from which no appeal was provided. Flores, however, based his appeal on Section 2 of the same decree, which pertains to removal after a formal investigation. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Justice exercised sound discretion in summarily removing Apolinar O. Flores from the service for being “notoriously undesirable” under P.D. No. 6 .

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Secretary of Justice’s action. The Court clarified that the procedural question of the appeal’s propriety was secondary. The principal issue was whether the Department Head exercised his “best judgment” soundly and not arbitrarily. The record showed that Flores, in sworn statements, admitted withdrawing specific amounts (P334.58, P492.00, and P2,956.80) for delivery to parties in three civil cases in 1971. He failed to submit any official report or accounting for these funds for about a year, despite a direct directive from the Clerk of Court in October 1972.
This failure constituted a clear violation of Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which requires a sheriff to make a return on a writ of execution. More critically, it created a strong presumption that Flores personally benefited from the money. His defenses—that no complainants came forward and that he held no money in trust—were deemed insignificant against his admitted acts of possession without accountability. These acts glaringly indicated dishonesty and justified the conclusion that he was “notoriously undesirable.” Consequently, the Secretary of Justice committed no error or abuse of discretion in accepting his resignation under P.D. No. 6 . The Court emphasized the fundamental mandate that public officers must serve with the highest integrity and remain accountable at all times.