A.M. No. P-88-181, January 3, 1989
Judge Roberto S. Chiongson vs. Deputy Sheriff Mateo Magbanua

FACTS

Judge Roberto Chiongson filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Mateo Magbanua for dishonesty and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint stemmed from Magbanua’s actions in Civil Case No. 17055, where a writ of replevin was issued. Magbanua served the summons and complaint on the defendants, the spouses Javelona, but delayed his return of service for over five months. Subsequently, an alias writ was issued, leading defendant Luisa Javelona to complain that she had paid Philacor Credit Corporation, through Magbanua, the sum of P1,800.00, which was never remitted.
In her affidavit, Mrs. Javelona detailed that Magbanua demanded P2,000.00 for payment to Philacor. She gave him P1,000.00 initially, with a receipt issued. A week later, she gave another P1,000.00, instructing him to deduct P200.00 for his expenses, leaving P800.00 for Philacor. Magbanua acknowledged this P800.00 on the back of the first receipt but wrote the words “three hundred pesos” beside the figures “P800.00”. Mrs. Javelona also claimed she gave Magbanua an additional P800.00 for his expenses.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Mateo Magbanua is administratively liable for gross dishonesty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross dishonesty and is dismissed from service. The Court found the records sufficient to establish liability without further investigation. Magbanua’s duties were strictly ministerial: to enforce the writ of replevin and serve court processes. His act of accepting money from Mrs. Javelona, purportedly for payment to the plaintiff, was entirely beyond his authority. His explanation—that the P1,000.00 was merely entrusted to him for safekeeping—was deemed a devious excuse lacking credibility, intended to conceal his unauthorized collection and misappropriation.
The discrepancy in the receipt, where the written words “three hundred pesos” conflicted with the numerical figure “P800.00,” was a deliberate attempt to deceive, anticipating that the written amount would control interpretation. His failure to specifically deny the second collection constituted an admission. Furthermore, his prolonged delay in making a return of service evidenced a malicious intent to misappropriate the funds. These acts, characterized by a lack of truth, honesty, and probity, constitute gross dishonesty, rendering him unfit for public office. Consistent with precedent where sheriffs were dismissed for misappropriating funds collected in their official capacity, the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave) and prejudice to reinstatement is imposed.