A.M. No. P-09-2668 February 24, 2015
ASTORGA AND REPOL LAW OFFICES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ARNOLD B. LUGARES, Complainant, vs. ALEXANDER D. VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Astorga and Repol Law Offices, representing FGU Insurance Corporation, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Alexander D. Villanueva, Sheriff IV of the RTC, Makati City, for willful neglect of duty, serious misconduct, graft and corruption, or extortion. The complaint arose from the execution of a final and executory decision in favor of FGU Insurance against NEC Cargo Services, Inc. Respondent was appointed as special sheriff to implement the writ of execution. Complainant, through Atty. Arnold B. Lugares, alleged that during a meeting on November 24, 2008, respondent demanded ₱8,000.00 to execute the decision, later lowering it to ₱5,000.00. They agreed to meet on November 26, 2008, to serve notices of garnishment. On that day, respondent sent text messages to Atty. Lugares, including “Dala mo ba mga colors?” and “un legal fees kako kung dala mo?” and later stated, “Padala mo nlng khit lunch time un legal fees, khit kmi na bhala magpaserve.” Atty. Lugares assumed the garnishment did not proceed because he refused to pay the demanded amount. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming the discussions were about the propriety of garnishing stock certificates, which he advised against, and that Atty. Lugares offered money as a “token of gratitude.” He asserted he did not extort money. The case was investigated by Executive Judges of the RTC Makati. Initially, the investigating judge recommended dismissal due to complainant’s desistance, and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissal for lack of evidence. However, upon complainant’s motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court reopened the case and ordered a new investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Alexander D. Villanueva is administratively liable for grave misconduct, specifically for demanding money in exchange for the performance of his official duties.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct and is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. The Supreme Court found the text messages sent by respondent to be clear evidence of his demand for “legal fees,” a euphemism for the monetary consideration he sought in exchange for serving the notices of garnishment. His actions constituted a corrupt practice, as he solicited money for the performance of an official act. The Court rejected his defense that the discussions were merely about the legality of garnishing shares of stock, noting that he had prepared the notices of garnishment and scheduled their service, which contradicted his claim that he believed the act was improper. The demand for money, even if reduced or not ultimately paid, is a severe transgression that undermines the integrity of the judiciary. Grave misconduct is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.