Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. P-02-1660             January 31, 2006

[Formerly AM OCA IPI 02-1290-P]

JUDGE ELISEO C. GEOLINGO, complainant, 

vs.
NICOLAS G. ALBAYDA, Sheriff II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bacolod City, respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

By Complaint1 dated November 28, 2001, Judge Eliseo C. Geolingo (complainant) of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Branch 6, Bacolod City charges Nicolas G. Albayda (respondent), MTCC Sheriff II, Branch 4,
Bacolod City with dishonesty, falsification of time card, gross incompetence, insubordination, neglect of duty, and
failure to liquidate sums of money received from litigants for implementation of writs of execution and demolition.

By complainant’s account, the following events drew him to lodge the present complaint against respondent.

Complainant was barely two months in the judiciary when he was informed that respondent had charged the
prevailing party-plaintiff in Civil Case No. 22511, for ejectment, P5,000 for every shanty to be demolished. He thus
instructed respondent to henceforth issue receipts for any amounts he collects from litigants, deposit the same
with the Clerk of Court, liquidate his expenses, and return any excess. Respondent did not, however, heed
complainant’s instruction.2

As reports reached complainant that respondent had been slow in implementing writs issued by the court, a
memorandum of January 9, 2001 was issued to him directing him to promptly serve or implement writs and other
court processes. Another memorandum dated June 4, 2001 was issued for him to comply with Section 14 of Rule
393 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Respondent did not, however, heed the two memoranda.

In Civil Case No. 26374, "Daniel A. Consuji, et al. v. Joevel Marcelo," albeit respondent had been in the service as
sheriff for 10 years, he betrayed his incompetence when he served the summons upon the wife of the defendant,
instead of the defendant himself, which resulted in the recall and setting aside of the decision rendered in the
case.

In the case of Garrido v. Daguno,  complainant was informed that respondent collected from the prevailing party-
plaintiff the sum of P15,000for serving on the defendant the writ of execution.

In April 2001, the Clerk of Court discovered that respondent had been punching "IN" and "OUT" in his time card
almost at the same time such that he would no longer have to return to the office in the afternoon to log out.
Respondent was thus warned to discontinue his dishonest practice, but to no avail, for again, sometime in
November 2001, he failed to log-out in the afternoon.5

On October 29, 2001, respondent was directed to attend a seminar scheduled on October 31, 2001, but he did not
comply.

Finally, complainant relates that respondent spends most of his time in the coffee shop and in the Department of
Education Culture and Sports Provincial Office near the Hall of Justice where party litigants who wish to see him
repair to.6

In respondent’s Answer,7 while he admits punching in and out his time card "although not necessarily almost at the
same time," he alleges that the charges of dishonesty and falsification are mere observations of complainant.

Specifically with respect to his failure to log out in one afternoon of November 2001, he attributes this to his being
out then to enforce a writ of execution.

As for the complaint that he charged the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 22511 the amount of P5,000 for every house to
be demolished, respondent denied the same, he claiming that the amount represented expenses for the
demolition of 10 houses.

Respecting his collection from the plaintiff in the case of Garrido v. Daguno of the sum of P15,000, respondent
claimed that the amount represented transportation and food expenses, and allowance for the members of the
Philippine National Police who assisted him in the enforcement of the writ of execution, and he returned part of the
amount to the plaintiff’s lawyer.

As to the complaint about the slow pace in the implementation of writs of execution and demolition, respondent
attributed the same to his failure to cope up with the demands of lawyers, the failure of the winning parties to
follow-up the implementation of writs, and pressure of work assignments some of which called for out-of-town
trips.

On why he served the summons in the case of Daniel Consuji v. Joevel Marcelo upon the defendant’s wife,
respondent justified it by claiming that the defendant was always out every time he attempted to serve the
summons on him.

On his failure to attend that seminar on October 31, 2001, he claimed that before he received the advice, he had
been scheduled to go to Carabalan, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental to serve the summons in the case of NKB
Lending v. Joenil Nunay, which schedule he could no longer postpone "because the plaintiff and the vehicle to be
used were all set."

By Resolution8 dated November 18, 2002, this Court referred the case to Executive Judge Ma. Lorna P.
Demonteverde, MTCC, Bacolod City for investigation, report and recommendation.

During the hearing on January 29, 2003 before Judge Demonteverde, respondent, who appeared and intimated
that he did not need the assistance of counsel, departed from his allegations in his Answer and admitted all the
allegations-charges in the complaint.9

Executive Judge Demonteverde thereupon recommended the dismissal of respondent from the service, which
recommendation10 the OCA has adopted in light of its following observations:11

Respondent’s admission of the charges leveled against him undoubtedly shows his failure to live up to the
standards of the office he had sworn to serve. He had fallen short of the degree of discipline exhorted from court
personnel (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sirios, 410 SCRA 35; Madrid vs. Quebral, 413 SCRA 1).
Tampering with his DTR to make it appear that he rendered full services for the dates indicated shows his lack of
integrity and a perverse sense of responsibility. This is gross dishonesty.

Charging P5,000.00 for every shanty to be demolished in Civil Case No. 22511 and P15,000.00 in Civil Case No.
26374 for the service of the writ of execution without the approval of the court constitutes grave misconduct and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Although the sheriff, in the performance of his duties, is not
precluded from collecting additional sums from a requesting party, the same should be subject to approval from
the court as provided for in Section 9 Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Before an interested party pays the sheriff’s
expenses, the latter should first estimate the amount to be approved by the court. The approved estimated
expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-officio sheriff who shall
disburse the amount to the executing sheriff. The latter shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for
rendering a return on the writ. (Abalde vs. Roque, Jr. 400 SCRA 210) Any amount received by the sheriff in
excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction and renders him liable for grave
misconduct and gross dishonesty (Alvares, Jr. vs. Martin, 411 SCRA 248). Moreover, any unspent amount shall
be refunded to the party who made the deposit.

Respondent failed to comply with the above requirement despite directives of the complainant judge. He failed to
explain why he collectedP5,000.00 per demolished shanty. This constitutes extortion. Moreover, his explanation
regarding the P15,000.00 he collected for the service of the writ of execution in the case of Angelina Pahila-
Garrido vs. Damiana Daguno was not authorized by the court, hence, is illegal.

Likewise, the undue delay of respondent in the implementation and return of writs of execution, his failure to
observe the procedure in the service of summons and his spending most of his working hours outside the court
where he is supposed to be when not officially out in the field constitute gross negligence and dereliction of duty.12

This Court finds the observations and recommendation of the OCA well-taken.

Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust. It enjoins public
officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and to at
all times remain accountable to the people.

No other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from
an employee than in the judiciary.13 Section 1 of Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel14 specifically enjoins court personnel to at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence,
and to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.

By the very nature of their functions, sheriffs, like respondent, are called upon to discharge their duties with due
care and utmost diligence and, above all, to be above suspicion.15

"At the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the
litigants, hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the
image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who
work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty
of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice."16 (Underscoring
supplied)

And they are mandated to, in the implementation of writs or processes of the court, comply with Rule 141, Section
10 of the Revised Rules of Court, the pertinent portion of which reads:
With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding
the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards’ fees,
warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the
sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall
deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff
assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process.
THE LIQUIDATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COURT. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party
making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s
expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.

But respondent did not.

Respondent’s act of punching in his time card with the Bundy clock and punching out almost at the same time is
patent dishonesty, reflective of his fitness as an employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the
service.17

Just as his failure to attend that seminar on October 31, 2001, which mirrors his insubordination and lack of
professionalism, retards his moral fitness to serve in the judiciary.

Given respondent’s purely ministerial role in the execution of judgments, he is under duty to proceed with
reasonable celerity and promptness to execute judgments according to their mandate,18 otherwise, they become
empty victories of the prevailing party.19 But respondent failed to discharge this duty.

With respondent’s admission of the charges against him which constitute Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave
Misconduct, he is a stigma to the good image of the judiciary and should not thus be allowed to stay in the service
a day more.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Nicolas G. Albayda, Sheriff II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6, Bacolod City
is, for Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct, DISMISSED from the service effective
immediately, with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to
re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government including government-owned and controlled
corporations and financing institutions.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. P-05-2027             January 27, 2006

JUDGE LUIS ENRIQUEZ REYES, Complainant, 

vs.
ERLINDA U. CABRERA, Clerk of Court of Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, Respondent,

x-----------------------------------x

A.M. No. P-05-2028             January 27, 2006

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, 

vs.
ERLINDA U. CABRERA, Clerk of Court of Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, and EDWIN
SANTOS, Clerk II of Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, Respondents.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

Respondents Erlinda U. Cabrera and Edwin C. Santos are Clerk of Court and Clerk II, respectively, of the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Guiguinto, Bulacan. They are charged with misappropriation of judicial funds.

Sometime in June 2004, an audit team from the Commission on Audit (COA) in Region III examined the cash and
accounts of respondent Cabrera. The audit covered the period from May 19991 to June 24, 2004. The results of the
examination showed that respondent Cabrera had a cash shortage of P1,385,872.85.

On July 12, 2004, the COA sent respondent Cabrera a letter2 informing her of the details of her deficiency. The
COA demanded the immediate liquidation (or surrender) of the missing funds. It also required respondent Cabrera
to explain the shortage in writing.

In response, respondent Cabrera gave the following explanation:

July 20, 2004

Sir/Madam:

In compliance [with] your letter dated July 12, 2004 directing the
undersigned to submit [an] explanation with regard to the unremitted
collections, I humbly ask for an apology for such delay [in] remittance. As
of now, I [am] exert[ing] all my efforts to remit said collections [at] the
soonest possible time.

For this reason, I kneel to you and [ask] for your mercy and your
indulgence that I be given a reasonable period of time within which to
deposit all unremitted collections. I promise to make a deposit
commencing on August 2004 until such time that the whole amount of
unremitted collections be deposited.

I am hoping for your kind consideration.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

ERLINDA U. CABRERA (sgd.)

Clerk of Court3
Respondent Cabrera concealed the matter from Judge Luis Enriquez Reyes, Presiding Judge of MTC-Guiguinto,
Bulacan. However, truth had its way of revealing itself. Judge Reyes subsequently learned of respondent Cabrera’s
cash shortage when COA informed him about it.

Judge Reyes immediately required respondent Cabrera to furnish him copies of the COA’s demand letter and
respondent Cabrera’s explanation. As a preventive measure, he relieved respondent Cabrera of her duties as
collection officer and custodian of funds and books of accounts. Aware of the gravity of the situation, Judge Reyes
promptly brought the matter to the attention of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

The OCA formed a judicial audit team to examine the books of accounts of respondent Cabrera. On August 19,
2004, the judicial audit team submitted a report on its financial audit of MTC-Guiguinto, Bulacan. It found that the
court incurred the following shortage:

Amount
Name of Fund

Clerk of Court General Fund P 54,433.00

Judiciary Development Fund 206,418.85

Fiduciary Fund 1,222,500.00

TOTAL P 1,483,351.85

It also found that, for some time, respondent Santos acted as collecting officer of the court together with
respondent Cabrera who recommended him for the job.

Based on the judicial audit report, the Court issued a resolution on October 5, 2004 requiring both respondents
Cabrera and Santos to explain the P1,483,351.85 shortage in their collections.

On November 10, 2004, respondent Santos submitted his manifestation and explanation. He stated that he was
not the accountable employee responsible for the cash shortage. However, he admitted that, when respondent
Cabrera went on sick leave sometime in 1999, he was one of the court personnel tasked to receive collections and
issue receipts for the court’s daily transactions.4 Pursuant to the instruction of respondent Cabrera and of Judge
Reyes himself,5 respondent Santos remitted the collections to respondent Cabrera. There was no instruction for
him to deposit the money in the bank nor was the passbook or other bank documents turned over to him.

To support his claim, respondent Santos attached a photocopy of the affidavit of MTC-Guiguinto, Bulacan court
aide Honorio Polintan in his explanation. Polintan’s affidavit attested that respondent Cabrera instructed him to
deliver, and he in fact delivered, the court collections to respondent Cabrera at her residence in Masagana Homes
Subdivision, Guiguinto, Bulacan while she was on sick leave.

On November 12, 2004, respondent Cabrera submitted a letter to the Court. She admitted responsibility for the
missing funds and begged for forgiveness. She asked that she be allowed to retire and her retirement benefits be
applied to her accountability. In the alternative, she requested that she be permitted to restitute the deficiency by
installment. Furthermore, she claimed that respondent Santos and several court employees also misappropriated
court funds in 2000 and 2001 while she was on leave.

On June 28, 2005, the Court resolved to refer this case to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.

On October 17, 2005, the OCA submitted its report.6 It noted respondent Cabrera’s admission of guilt. It found that
respondent Cabrera took full responsibility for the unaccounted funds in her July 20, 2004 letter to the COA.

The OCA disregarded respondent Cabrera’s attempt to downplay her liability by implicating respondent Santos and
other unnamed co-employees in her November 12, 2004 letter. The OCA found her effort to be belated and
unsubstantiated. Unlike respondent Santos who flatly denied any participation in the anomaly and refuted the
charges against him, respondent Cabrera made no such denial but owned up to the misconduct instead.

In view of its findings, the OCA proposed the dismissal of the complaint against respondent Santos. It made the
following recommendations in connection with the complaint against respondent Cabrera:

1. [Respondent Cabrera] be found GUILTY of dishonesty and gross misconduct and be DISMISSED from
the service effective immediately, with FORFEITURE of all withheld salaries, allowances and benefits, as
well as retirement benefits, with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.

2. [Respondent Cabrera] be DIRECTED to restitute the amount of [P1,483,351.85] representing her

shortages in the following: J.D.F. – P206,418.85; [G.F.] – P54,433.00; Fiduciary Fund – P1,222,500.00.

3. The Legal Office be DIRECTED to file appropriate criminal charges against [respondent Cabrera].

4. The Employees Leave Division, OAS-OCA be DIRECTED to compute the balance of earned leave
credits of [respondent Cabrera] and forward the same to the Finance Division, FMO-OCA which shall
 compute the monetary value of the leave credits and other monetary benefits that [respondent Cabrera] is
still entitled to receive from the Court, the amount to be included as restitution of the computed shortages.

5. ISSUE A HOLD-DEPARTURE ORDER [against respondent Cabrera] to prevent her from leaving the
country.7

The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the OCA.

Respondent Cabrera admitted her liability. The tenor of her July 20, 2004 letter to the COA was clear and
categorical. Not only did respondent Cabrera admit the delay in the remittance of her collections, she also
promised to return all unremitted court funds. Thus, she recognized that she was indeed in possession of such
funds, that she failed to remit these funds on time and that she was under the obligation to remit the amount until
entirely accounted for.

Respondent Cabrera’s attempt to incriminate respondent Santos and other court employees without providing
either specific details or proof of their alleged malfeasance was a mere afterthought to mitigate her liability. It was a
desperate attempt to cushion her accountability. It paled in comparison with respondent Santos’ straightforward
disclaimer of liability coupled with Judge Reyes’ certification and the court aide’s affidavit.

A clerk of court’s failure to make a timely turn-over of cash deposited with him constitutes not just gross negligence
in the performance of duty but also gross dishonesty, if not malversation.8 Misappropriation of judiciary funds is a
serious misconduct, a grave offense punishable by dismissal.9

Respondent Cabrera should bear in mind that public service requires utmost integrity and strict discipline. Thus, a
public servant must bear at all times the highest sense of honesty.10 This is especially significant for employees in
the judiciary. The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of its
personnel, from the judge to the lowest employee.11 Hence, those involved in the administration of justice must live
up to the highest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service.12

For failing to live up to these high ethical standards, respondent Cabrera should be dismissed. Her actions placed
her behavior under serious doubt. The Court cannot countenance any conduct, act or omission, committed by
those involved in administering justice, which violates the norm of public accountability and which diminishes the
faith of the people in the judiciary.13

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby declares the following:

1. the complaint against respondent Edwin C. Santos is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence
and lack of merit.

2. respondent Erlinda U. Cabrera is hereby found GUILTY of dishonesty and gross misconduct. She is
ordered DISMISSED from the service effective immediately with prejudice to reemployment in any
government agency, including government-owned and controlled corporations. All her salaries,
allowances and retirement benefits that have been withheld are forfeited in favor of the government.

3. respondent Erlinda U. Cabrera is also hereby ORDERED to restitute within 30 days from her receipt of
this resolution the amount ofP1,483,351.85 representing her shortage as follows: Judiciary Development
Fund – P206,418.85, Clerk of Court General Fund –P54,433 and Fiduciary Fund – P1,222,500.

4. the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services–OCA is hereby DIRECTED to

compute the balance of respondent Erlinda U. Cabrera’s earned leave credits and forward the same to
the Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office–OCA which shall compute its monetary value. Whatever
amount, as well as other monetary benefits, she may still be entitled to shall be applied as part of the
restitution of the shortage.

5. the Office of the Court Administrator is hereby DIRECTED to coordinate with the prosecution arm of the
government to ensure the expeditious criminal prosecution of respondent Erlinda Cabrera.

6. finally, the Bureau of Immigration is hereby DIRECTED to issue a hold-departure order against
respondent Erlinda U. Cabrera to prevent her from leaving the country.

SO ORDERED.