A.M. No. P-131 and A.M. No. P-154. March 29, 1974.
Francisco Valencia and Estrella Borlongan, petitioners, vs. Gregorio Pamisaran, Deputy Sheriff, CFI of Quezon, Branch IV, Calauag, Quezon, respondent.

FACTS

In two consolidated administrative cases, Deputy Sheriff Gregorio Pamisaran was charged with misappropriating funds entrusted to him in his official capacity. In A.M. No. P-131, complainant Francisco Valencia alleged that respondent collected P1,000.00 as proceeds from a money judgment in December 1969 but failed to remit it for over six months, delivering it only in July 1970 after a complaint was filed. In A.M. No. P-154, complainant Estrella Borlongan charged that she delivered P4,600.00 to respondent in July 1972 for the redemption of her property sold at auction, but he failed to transmit the amount to the purchaser, jeopardizing her redemption rights.
Executive Judge Leodegario L. Mogol investigated both complaints. His reports substantiated the charges, finding that respondent neglected to deliver the funds despite repeated demands. The reports also noted a third, uncharged instance involving P2,910.00 from another case, where respondent still withheld P700.00 despite a court order for its release. Judge Mogol concluded that respondent’s habitual delays and conversions impaired public confidence in the administration of justice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Gregorio Pamisaran should be held administratively liable for misappropriating funds received in his official capacity, warranting his dismissal from service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable and is ordered dismissed. The Supreme Court found the charges fully established. In P-131, respondent’s claim of a mutual agreement to use the P1,000.00 was belied by his own certificate acknowledging receipt and a promise to pay within two months, which he breached by delaying payment for six months. In P-154, his conversion of the P4,600.00 redemption money was evident when, nearly a year later during the hearing, he could not produce the funds and offered a feeble excuse.
The legal logic is clear: a sheriff is a court officer charged with a fiduciary duty over funds collected or received by virtue of his office. Misappropriation or undue delay in remitting such funds constitutes gross dishonesty and grave misconduct, which erodes public trust in the judiciary. The Court emphasized that embroiling litigants in further litigation to recover funds from the very officer entrusted with their custody is a severe abuse that undermines the administration of justice. The three documented instances demonstrated a pattern of brazen conversion, showing respondent’s unfitness for public service. Accordingly, the Court ordered his dismissal and referred the records for potential criminal prosecution.