G.R. No. 71784 and G.R. No. 75113, December 12, 1986
Romulo G. Dinsay, et al. vs. Judge Romeo J. Hibionada, et al.; Leopoldo D. Cioco and Renato M. Belleza vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan

FACTS

These consolidated cases involve an extrajudicial foreclosure. Respondents Leopoldo D. Cioco and Renato M. Belleza, sheriffs in Bacolod, conducted an auction sale on March 8, 1984, selling mortgaged properties of Planters Machinery Corporation (PLAMACOR) to Traders Royal Bank (TRB) as the sole bidder. The sheriffs executed a Certificate of Sale stating the bid price as P3,263,182.67, which was notarized that same day. Subsequently, TRB filed a deficiency judgment case against PLAMACOR and its president, Romulo Dinsay, alleging the actual purchase price was only P730,000.00. Dinsay then filed an administrative complaint (A.M. No. R-252-P) against the sheriffs, alleging they fraudulently substituted page 4 of the original certificate of sale to reflect the lower price. A criminal case for falsification was also filed against them before the Sandiganbayan.
In the administrative investigation, Sheriffs Cioco and Belleza claimed the bank submitted an amended bid of P730,000.00 on the afternoon of March 8, 1984, and they merely re-typed page 4 to reflect this change. However, court employee Antonia Resujento testified that Belleza asked her to re-type page 4 in the third week of April 1984, substituting the price. The investigating judge found the procedure for the change was without legal basis, as the document was already a complete public document.

ISSUE

The primary issue in the administrative case is whether the sheriffs committed gross dishonesty and grave misconduct by substituting a page in the notarized certificate of sale. A secondary procedural issue is whether the deficiency judgment case or the administrative case constitutes a prejudicial question that should suspend the criminal falsification case.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the sheriffs guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed them from service. The Court disbelieved the sheriffs’ claim that the substitution happened on March 8, 1984. Critical evidence contradicted this: the substituted page 4 lacked the notarial seal present on all other original pages, and the notary public testified he notarized only one document with the higher bid price. The substitution, done weeks later without proper authority, constituted a tampering of a public document after its notarization and filing. This act was a clear betrayal of public trust and integrity required of court personnel.
Regarding the prejudicial question, the Court ruled that neither the administrative case nor the civil deficiency case warranted the suspension of the criminal falsification proceedings. A finding of administrative liability for misconduct does not pre-determine criminal guilt, which requires proof of criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the civil case’s resolution on the actual bid price for determining a deficiency would not be determinative of the sheriffs’ criminal liability for the act of falsification itself. The Sandiganbayan was correct in proceeding with the criminal case. The writ of attachment in the deficiency case was also set aside. The sheriffs were dismissed with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment.