A.M. No. P-1158 - Abejaron vs. Panes

Alejandro C. Abejaron, the complainant, and the Philippine National Bank, the complainant-intervenor, initiated the administrative case against respondent Atty. Jose V. Panes.

Respondent Panes served as the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, General Santos City, and also functioned as ex-officio provincial sheriff.

The case is set against the backdrop of an execution of judgment in Civil Case No. 1377 involving a deficiency claim after the sale of mortgaged properties.

During the execution of a writ in connection with Civil Case No. 1377, judgment debtor Conrado Crisostomo delivered a total sum of ₱15,000.00 to respondent Panes in trust, intended for the judgment creditor, the Philippine National Bank.

Respondent Panes, however, issued official receipts only for a partial amount of ₱10,000.00 on two separate dates (October 19 and 29, 1973), creating a discrepancy between the actual cash received and what was officially recorded.

Respondent Panes alleged that the remaining amount was returned to the judgment debtor, as evidenced by a private receipt dated December 6, 1973, though this claim was strongly denied by both the complainant and the judgment debtor.

Documentary evidence included receipts, affidavits, and other exhibits (e.g., Exhibits ‘B’, ‘B-1’, ‘D-1’, ‘D-2’, ‘H’, and ‘L’) demonstrating that the ₱15,000.00 never reached its intended recipient, the Philippine National Bank.

Testimonial evidence, including an affidavit voluntarily executed by Conrado Crisostomo, affirmed that respondent Panes had not remitted the full amount, thereby suggesting misappropriation of funds for his own benefit.

Additional evidence revealed that Panes secured various amounts totaling ₱15,200.00 by way of loans from the judgment debtor during the period the writ was being executed.

As ex-officio provincial sheriff, respondent Panes was duty bound to execute writs of execution along with garnishments, levies, and other court orders.

His failure to levy on a fishing boat owned by Conrado Crisostomo and on a piece of land linked to Crisostomo’s wife further underscored his dereliction of duty.

Such inaction was seen as an act of malicious nonfeasance, aggravating the offense of misappropriation and exacerbating the damage to the judgment creditor.

Respondent Panes’ personal record reveals a previous administrative case (Administrative Matter No. P-222) in which he was found guilty of negligence and was suspended from office for one month.

The decision referenced prior cases—Abdulwahid vs. Reyes and Ganaden vs. Bolasco—where similar misconduct, such as misappropriation and failure to issue proper receipts for collected funds, led to dismissal from service.

Whether respondent Panes, by misappropriating the funds received under the writ of execution, committed the offense of gross dishonesty as defined under the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the issuance of only partial official receipts, as opposed to the full amount received, constitutes evidence of deceptive conduct and a breach of his official duties.
Whether securing additional sums by way of loans from the judgment debtor, in the midst of executing the writ, further demonstrated gross misconduct or nonfeasance.
Whether respondent Panes’ failure to levy on the properties mentioned in the execution order amounts to malicious nonfeasance in office.
Whether his prior record of administrative negligence should weigh in favor of dismissing him from service, in light of the current charges and evidence.