G.R. No. A.M. No. P-11-2903, February 5, 2014
Angelito R. Marquez, et al., Complainants, vs. Judge Venancio M. Ovejera and Sheriff IV Lourdes E. Collado, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainants were defendants in two civil cases (Civil Case Nos. 1330 and 1416) for unlawful detainer and recovery of possession, respectively, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Paniqui, Tarlac, presided by respondent Judge Venancio M. Ovejera. The cases were decided against complainants. Their appeal in Civil Case No. 1330 was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), leading to the issuance of a writ of execution and subsequently a writ of demolition. Complainants in Civil Case No. 1416 also failed to comply, resulting in a writ of demolition. Respondent Sheriff IV Lourdes E. Collado was tasked to implement the demolition writs.
Complainants filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ovejera and Collado for abuse of authority, disregard of due process, misuse and fabrication of judicial orders, and conduct unbecoming. Additionally, Collado was charged with violating Republic Act (RA) No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for alleged non-disclosure in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for 2004 and 2005 of several time deposits with Moncada Women’s Credit Corporation (MWCC), and with violating RA No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act or AMLA).
Judge Ovejera denied the charges, stating the writs were lawfully issued and a similar complaint had been dismissed. Collado denied abuse of authority, claiming she merely implemented court orders, and questioned the authenticity of documents regarding her alleged AMLA violations.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially found no basis for the complaints against both respondents regarding judicial functions. However, it found that Collado did not indicate the time deposit amounts in her 2004 and 2005 SALNs and recommended further investigation. The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. An Executive Judge recommended dismissal, finding Collado declared the initial capital in her SALN and had no intent to falsify, and no AMLA violation was established. The OCA, based on a certification, later found Collado also failed to submit her SALNs for 2000 and 2001 and recommended a fine equivalent to six months’ salary.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff IV Lourdes E. Collado should be held administratively liable for violating SALN submission requirements under RA No. 6713 .

RULING

Yes, but only for her incomplete SALN disclosures for 2004 and 2005. The Court concurs with the OCA but modifies the penalty.
Section 8 of RA No. 6713 mandates public officials to submit a sworn, detailed SALN, including all assets such as investments, cash in banks, and the like. Collado admitted she only declared the original amounts of her time deposits in her 2004 and 2005 SALNs and did not disclose the accrued interests. This failure constitutes a violation of RA No. 6713 .
However, the Court cannot hold Collado liable for failing to submit her SALNs for 2000 and 2001, as this charge was not included in the original complaint, depriving her of an opportunity to be heard.
Regarding the AMLA charge, the Court finds no substantial basis in the complaint and records to establish a violation.
As to the penalty, Section 11 of RA No. 6713 allows a fine not exceeding six months’ salary. Considering this appears to be Collado’s first offense, without bad faith or fraudulent intent, the Court imposes a fine of ₱5,000.00.