A.M. No. P-06-2130 - Flores vs. Pascasio

Complainant: Susana E. Flores, who filed an administrative complaint.
Respondent: Ariel D. Pascasio, Sheriff III, MTCC Branch 5, Olongapo City, charged with Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority.

An auction sale was conducted on March 5, 2004, at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Olongapo City to sell a JVC DVD player and a Sony TV set.
The complainant submitted a combined bid of P10,200.00 for both items with the indication “Item(s): 1. Sony TV-21 inches and 2. DVD-JVC.”

During the public auction, the items were sold separately: the DVD player for P2,520.00 and the TV set for P2,500.00.
The complainant alleged that the respondent manipulated the process by recording her bid as only P1,200.00 (a bid for the DVD) instead of the actual bid of P10,200.00.
The respondent was also accused of verbally abusing the complainant for questioning the auction’s conduct.

In his comment dated August 24, 2004, the respondent acknowledged receiving the bid but claimed it was not itemized.
He explained that, as per auction rules, itemized bids were required; therefore, his action of disregarding the bid on technical grounds was justified.

The Evaluation Report (dated November 30, 2005) found that the complainant’s combined bid of P10,200.00 was indeed the highest.
The report highlighted that the respondent’s action of recording a lower bid and omitting the exact amount in the minutes was an act of dishonesty undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
The OCA recommended redocketing the case as an administrative matter, finding the respondent guilty of dishonesty, and suggesting a two-month suspension—with a stern warning for any future similar misconduct.

Following the OCA recommendation, the administrative complaint was redocketed as a regular matter.
The complainant, through her counsel Atty. Randy B. Escolango, repeatedly requested extensions for filing a reply but eventually failed to timely submit a response, leading to a fine of P2,000.00 against said counsel.
The case was later referred for further investigation to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Olongapo City, though by then the respondent had already been dismissed from service.
Pending motions for reconsideration of the dismissal were denied, rendering further investigation moot, yet the administrative proceedings continued to determine culpability.

The minutes of the auction sale included the complainant’s name but did not specify any bid amount next to it, while a bid of P1,200.00 was recorded for another bidder.
The evidence demonstrated that by disregarding the complainant’s clearly itemized intent to bid P10,200.00 for two items, the respondent directly violated Section 19, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The respondent’s conduct was also seen as prejudicial to the plaintiff’s right in a debt recovery action relating to a civil case.

Whether the respondent’s manipulation of the auction, including falsifying the minutes by recording a significantly lower, technically itemized bid, constitutes an act of dishonesty in the performance of his official duty.

Analysis of the discrepancy between the complainant’s actual bid and the recorded bid.
Evaluation of the respondent’s justification that due to the bid not being itemized, his action was technically correct.

Whether the respondent was afforded due process in the administrative proceedings despite the procedural delays and the complainant’s failure to timely file a reply.

Consideration of the respondent’s opportunity to submit a comment and evidence to the contrary.
Whether the administrative process met the standards of fairness in providing an opportunity to be heard.

Whether the penalty imposed—a fine equivalent to three months’ salary—is appropriate given that suspension could not be imposed due to the respondent’s prior dismissal from service.

Assessment of the proportionality of the fine relative to the magnitude of the misconduct.
Reflection on the impact of the misconduct on public confidence in the judiciary and administrative fairness.