G.R. No. A.M. No. P-06-2197; October 11, 2007
PAG-IBIG FUND, represented by MARIETTA B. BRITANICO, complainant, vs. MANUEL L. ARIMADO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Legazpi City, respondent.

FACTS

Pag-IBIG Fund, through its Regional Manager, filed an administrative complaint for misfeasance and malicious nonfeasance against Sheriff Manuel L. Arimado. The case stemmed from an extrajudicial foreclosure sale conducted by Arimado on January 14, 2000, where he received the winning bid price of P272,000.00 from the buyer, Fidel See. Although Arimado initially deposited the amount with the Clerk of Court, he later withdrew it upon representation that he would deliver it to Pag-IBIG. He failed to remit the money and instead misappropriated it for personal use.
This failure led See to file a complaint for specific performance. A Compromise Agreement was forged on October 15, 2001, wherein Arimado acknowledged his personal use of the funds and obligated himself to repay Pag-IBIG by October 31, 2001. The trial court approved the agreement. However, Arimado reneged on his obligation, prompting the instant administrative charge. In his defense, Arimado claimed he used the money for his wife’s hospital expenses after Pag-IBIG allegedly refused to accept his initial tender and later denied his request for financial assistance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Manuel L. Arimado should be held administratively liable for his actions concerning the misappropriated foreclosure sale proceeds.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Dishonesty and is dismissed from the service. The Supreme Court emphasized that the conduct of every judiciary officer must be characterized by propriety and be beyond suspicion. Arimado’s admission in the Compromise Agreement that he personally used the public auction proceeds constituted clear dishonesty and gross misconduct. His act of misappropriating funds held in trust by virtue of his official duty degraded public confidence in the judiciary.
The Court rejected his justifications. His willingness to repay or his claim of dire financial necessity neither exonerates him nor mitigates his liability. The misappropriation itself is the offense. Furthermore, the Court noted Arimado’s prior administrative record, having been suspended on three previous occasions for various misconducts, demonstrating an incorrigible character unfit for public service. Under Section 52(A)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for first-time offenders. The penalty carries forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or corporation.