G.R. No. A.M. No. P-92-698. March 3, 1993.
Chito Valenton and Baning Ang, complainants, vs. Alfonso Melgar, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Branch 6, Baguio City, respondent.

FACTS

Two separate administrative complaints for misconduct were filed against respondent Alfonso Melgar, a Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6. Complainant Chito Valenton alleged that respondent failed to return P17,290.00, which Valenton gave to respondent as the purchase price for items bought at a public auction sale on October 3, 1991, in connection with execution proceedings in Civil Cases Nos. 284-R and 300-R. Valenton claimed he participated in the auction because respondent assured him and his partner they could take over the management of a hotel operated by the defendant in those cases. Complainant Baning Ang alleged that respondent failed to return P5,000.00 entrusted to him to pay for publication expenses of an auction sale in Civil Case No. 1440-R, even though the defendants shouldered those expenses. Respondent, in his explanation, denied Valenton’s allegations regarding the P17,290.00, stating only P12,290.00 was received and remitted to the prevailing party, and denied giving any assurance about hotel management. He admitted receiving P5,000.00 from Ang but claimed he had returned P3,000.00, with a P2,000.00 balance due to financial constraints. The Executive Judge of Baguio City forwarded the complaints to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Court noted respondent had a prior suspension for misconduct in A.M. No. P-90-418 for misusing an attached vehicle.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Alfonso Melgar is guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty warranting dismissal from service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and is dismissed from office. Regarding Valenton’s complaint, the Court found no evidence to support the claim of an additional P5,000.00 payment or the assurance about hotel management, and the Sheriff’s Return showed the P12,290.00 auction proceeds were remitted to the prevailing party. However, as to Ang’s complaint, respondent’s admission of receiving P5,000.00 for publication expenses and his delayed return of the amount constituted misappropriation for personal use, amounting to grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. His financial problems did not justify this act. Given his prior suspension for a similar offense and the Court’s emphasis on the high standard of integrity required for judiciary personnel, respondent’s dismissal was warranted. He was dismissed with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or corporation.