AM 92 701; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-92-701 November 8, 1993
Office of the Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Leandro Anquilo, Jr., Deputy Sheriff, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 40, Quezon City, respondent.
FACTS
The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Deputy Sheriff Leandro Anquilo, Jr. The case stemmed from his actions in implementing a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 50777, “Traders Royal Bank v. Angel San Diego and Luzviminda Santos.” On August 8, 1989, a check for P16,948.39 was issued to the bank as partial payment, which respondent turned over to the bank’s assistant manager, Teofilo M. Pugeda, after collecting P2,000 as partial sheriff’s fees. In his Sheriff’s Report dated August 14, 1989, respondent stated he had collected P21,806.12 in full satisfaction of the judgment debt. However, on August 15, 1989, another check for P8,500 payable to cash, intended for the same obligation, was issued. Respondent encashed this check and kept the money. Pugeda later discovered this payment and demanded remittance. Due to respondent’s failure to remit, Pugeda filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, which initially recommended criminal charges for estafa and falsification. The Ombudsman later dismissed the complaint after Pugeda withdrew it upon respondent’s remittance of the P8,500. Respondent claimed the bank refused to accept the P8,500 and that the Branch Clerk of Court refused to safekeep it. The Investigating Judge found these claims unsupported by evidence.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Leandro Anquilo, Jr. is administratively liable for grave misconduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge. The evidence established that respondent defrauded the bank by withholding the P8,500, falsely reporting full collection, and personally appropriating the funds. His remittance only after a complaint was filed with the Ombudsman bolstered the charge. The dismissal of the criminal case by the Ombudsman based on desistance does not bar administrative sanctions. Accordingly, respondent is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or corporation.