AM P 16 3615; (January, 2017) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-16-3615, January 24, 2017
Marita Tolentino and Fely San Andres, Complainants, vs. Sheriff IV Glenn A. Umali, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Malolos City, Bulacan, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Marita Tolentino and Fely San Andres filed letter-complaints before Judge Corazon A. Domingo-Rañola, alleging that respondent Sheriff Glenn A. Umali received the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00) from San Andres. This payment was for the judgment debt awarded to Tolentino in a criminal case pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Pulilan, Bulacan. However, Umali neither delivered the money to Tolentino or the clerk of court nor deposited it with the court’s bank account.
Judge Rañola held a conference where Umali agreed to remit the amount by March 13, 2015. The matter was subsequently reported to the Executive Judge and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his comment, Umali claimed the issue stemmed from a mere misunderstanding and that he had already fully paid Tolentino.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Glenn A. Umali is administratively liable for his failure to immediately remit the collected judgment debt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct. The Court agreed with the OCA’s recommendation, emphasizing that sheriffs must strictly comply with the procedure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The rule mandates that if the judgment obligee is not present, the sheriff must turn over payment to the clerk of court or deposit it in the court’s bank account on the same day.
Umali’s failure to do so constituted a flagrant disregard of an established rule. His defense of a “misunderstanding” was deemed specious and an afterthought, as he provided no explanation for its nature. The Court ruled that his actions, holding the funds until exposed by the complainants’ letters, demonstrated a clear intent to violate the law and connoted corruption, which are elements of grave misconduct. Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal even for a first offense. No mitigating circumstances were present. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Umali from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.