A.M. No. P-93-977 - Miro vs. Tan

A verified complaint was filed by Oscar E. Miro, representing Kasalika-Bayan, Inc., in Civil Case No. 136-91, against Ruben C. Tan, the Deputy Sheriff of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon.
The civil decision in favor of Kasalika-Bayan, Inc. ordered the defendants to vacate the premises and surrender the property to the corporation, which necessitated the issuance of a writ of demolition.

It was alleged that during the execution of the writ of demolition on May 28, 1992, respondent demanded a total of ₱22,750.00 to cover the expenses of demolition.
After the scheduled demolition on October 7, 1992, failed to materialize, an alias writ was issued; during its implementation, respondent allegedly demanded an additional ₱10,000.00, purportedly as “grease money.”

The ₱22,750.00 had been fully liquidated and disbursed for the demolition order’s implementation, as shown in his itemized expense report.
The demolition exercise involved hiring a demolition team of around fifty persons to handle fifteen houses, although only two houses were demolished due to the chaotic circumstances arising from a grenade incident that resulted in a fatality.
The additional ₱10,000.00 was not a personal kickback but rather an estimated cost for the alias writ of execution, a figure that the complainant misinterpreted as grease money.

Respondent’s documents, including detailed accounts, cash vouchers, and a “contract” with the complainant, were submitted to justify the expense claims.

The case was referred to Executive Judge Benjamin T. Antonio for further inquiry and report.
The investigating judge found that:

The ₱22,750.00 received was reasonable and fully disbursed for the demolition team’s services, security, transportation, food, and necessary equipment—even though only two houses were demolished due to unforeseen events.
The allegation concerning the ₱10,000.00 as grease money was untenable, as the respondent’s explanation that it was an estimate for additional demolition expenses was more credible.
The complainant’s misunderstanding of the respondent’s statement inadvertently led to the grease money allegation.

Despite the reasonable nature of the charged expenses, concerns were raised regarding:

The inconsistency in the respondent’s itemized expense accounts, which suggested discrepancies in the recording of the ₱22,750.00.
His failure to submit the estimated expenses to the Court for approval and deposit via the Clerk of Court, as mandated by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 31-90, Section 9, and Administrative Circular No. 12.

While the Executive Judge recommended exoneration from corruption charges (subject to reprimand), the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a harsher sanction—dismissal for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service.

The court ultimately found the respondent not guilty of corruption but did find him negligent for his failure to observe the proper procedural requirements under Section 9 of Rule 141, as amended.
A penalty of a ₱3,000.00 fine was imposed with a stern warning against the repetition of similar conduct.

Whether the discrepancies in the respondent’s detailed itemized accounts of the ₱22,750.00 could be taken as evidence of dishonesty or misappropriation of funds.
Whether the respondent’s failure to submit the estimated expenses and liquidate them properly, as required by Supreme Court Administrative Circulars, constitutes a violation of his official duties.
Whether the allegation that the respondent demanded an additional ₱10,000.00 as grease money is substantiated, or if it was merely a misinterpretation of his statement regarding additional estimated expenses.
What appropriate disciplinary action should be imposed given the administrative irregularities and non-compliance with the established guidelines, notwithstanding the reasonableness of the actual demolition expenses.