G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-11-2913; April 12, 2011 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2810-P)
Case Title: Ma. Chedna Romero, Complainant, vs. Pacifico B. Villarosa, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ma. Chedna Romero was the plaintiff in a damages case (Civil Case No. 462) settled by a Compromise Agreement dated December 8, 2005, wherein the Spouses Laurente agreed to pay her ₱30,000.00. She had already received ₱10,000.00 directly from the debtors on December 6, 2005. Due to non-payment of the ₱20,000.00 balance, a writ of execution was issued. The debtor, Enriqueta Laurente, attested she delivered the ₱20,000.00 balance to respondent Sheriff Pacifico B. Villarosa, Jr., who also issued a certification to that effect. The complainant alleged the sheriff failed to remit the amounts and demanded ₱1,500.00 from her as sheriff’s fees.
In his Comment, Sheriff Villarosa admitted receiving ₱200.00 from Romero for gasoline and receiving a total of ₱13,000.00 from Enriqueta Laurente in various installments between September 20, 2006, and February 28, 2007. He claimed he directly turned over ₱10,000.00 of this to Romero in November 2006 and January 2007, and that the remaining ₱3,000.00 was given directly by Laurente to the OIC Clerk of Court. He further alleged that Romero refused to receive the final ₱6,000.00 balance from him in May 2007, prompting him to consign it with the MTC Clerk of Court on November 27, 2008, which Romero received on April 17, 2009. The full ₱30,000.00 was ultimately received by Romero from various sources, including the sheriff, the debtor, and the clerk of court.
The Investigating Judge found Sheriff Villarosa’s transactions anomalous and irregular. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with the factual findings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Pacifico B. Villarosa, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in handling the monetary payments under the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Sheriff Villarosa guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, and ordered his DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.
The Court adopted the factual findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA, highlighting multiple irregularities:
1. Misappropriation and False Claim: Sheriff Villarosa admitted receiving ₱13,000.00 from the debtor but only turned over ₱10,000.00 to Romero, falsely claiming the ₱3,000.00 difference was given to the Clerk of Court. This was belied by the debtor’s affidavit and the Clerk of Court’s certification.
2. Failure to Account and Delay in Remittance: He remitted amounts to Romero that did not match the amounts and timing of his receipts from the debtor (e.g., giving ₱7,000.00 when he had only received ₱4,700.00), indicating failure to immediately account for the funds. He was also guilty of undue delay in delivering all collected amounts, particularly the final ₱6,000.00 balance, which he deposited over a year after Romero’s alleged refusal.
3. Violation of Procedural Rules: He delivered the collected amounts directly to the judgment obligee (Romero) instead of to the Clerk of Court as mandated by Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The rule requires the sheriff to turn over all amounts received to the clerk of court on the same day, who then arranges for payment to the judgment obligee.
These acts constituted Grave Misconduct, which implies a wrongful intent and a corrupt motive, and Dishonesty. As a sheriff, Villarosa failed to discharge his duties with care, diligence, and professionalism. His actions eroded public trust in the judiciary. Given the gravity of the offenses, which involved misuse of public funds, the penalty of dismissal was warranted.