Case Digest (A.M. No. P-124)
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-124)
Facts:
Soledad V. Ganaden v. Gregorio N. Bolasco, Adm. Matter No. P-124, 159-A Phil. 340 (En Banc), May 16, 1975, Supreme Court En Banc, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Soledad V. Ganaden, a stenographer of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zambales, Branch 1 (Olongapo City), filed administrative charges against respondent Gregorio N. Bolasco, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of the same court.Ganaden charged Bolasco with (1) dishonesty — alleging he demanded P13.00 as sheriff’s fee in Civil Case No. 711-0 but issued a receipt for a lesser amount, and that he issued a private receipt for P50.00 to plaintiff Paulino Padua in Civil Case No. 427-0 for service of a writ of execution but failed to make return thereof; and (2) misconduct — alleging delay in serving summons in Civil Case No. 684-0 on Paulita Esteban and that he entrusted service to her nephew, Atty. Eduardo Balaoing, Jr. Respondent denied the allegations, explaining that counsel had given him P12.60 for service in case 711-0 but the actual fee was only P4.20, that he returned the excess P8.40 together with the official receipt on February 10, 1971; that service in case 684-0 was hampered by the defendant’s absence and that the plaintiff or her counsel never complained; and that the P50.00 from Padua was a deposit to accommodate the litigant and was evidenced by a private receipt (Exhibit B) but was not misappropriated.
During investigation complainant admitted she had no personal or direct knowledge of the transactions and that she had no evidence to substantiate the charges, claiming her purpose was to have the proper authority determine the truth. The Investigating District Judge of the CFI of Zambales recommended dismissal of the complaint in a report dated March 24, 1973, citing complainant’s admission and the failure of alleged interested parties to appear and support the charges.
The Supreme Court found the Investigating District Judge in error. The Court determined two undisputed facts: (1) respondent received P12.60 on February 3, 1971 for sheriffs’ fees in Civil Case No. 711-0 before the summons were delivered to him and did not issue an official receipt even after he obtained the official receipt booklet on February 5 or 6, 1971; and (2) respondent received P50.00 for service of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 427-0 without issuing the corresponding official receipt, evidenced by the private receipt (Exhibit B). The Court also noted respondent’s personnel (201) file reflected prior complaints for delay, abuse of authority and related matters, and that a Department of Justice communication of December 5, 1972 had placed respondent’s letter of resignation in abeyance pending outcome of administrative proceedings. The Court concluded there was no proof of undue delay or improper delegation in the serving of summons on Paulita Esteban.
The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter (Adm. Matter No. P-124) and was decided by the Court En Banc on May 16, 1975.
Issues:
- Did respondent commit illegal exaction/dishonesty by receiving official collections without issuing official receipts?
- Did respondent commit misconduct by delaying service of summons upon Paulita Esteban and entrusting service to her nephew?
- If respondent is guilty, is dismissal from the service the appropriate penalty?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)