A.M. No. P-11-2913 - Romero vs. Villarosa, Jr.

Ma. Chedna Romero, the complainant, initiated a claim for damages in Civil Case No. 462 against Spouses Valentin and Enriqueta A. Laurente before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Palompon.
The dispute was amicably resolved by a Compromise Agreement dated December 8, 2005, whereby the Spouses Laurente bound themselves to pay a total of P30,000.00—P24,000.00 by March 2006 and the remaining P6,000.00 by October 2006.
On December 6, 2005, Romero received P10,000.00 from Enriqueta Laurente in partial compliance with the agreement.

Due to nonpayment of the balance, Romero filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ Execution on April 18, 2006, and the corresponding writ was issued on August 8, 2006.
Enriqueta Laurente attested that she delivered the remaining P20,000.00 to Sheriff Pacifico B. Villarosa, Jr., Sheriff IV of RTC, Branch 17, Palompon, with the delivery supported by a certification dated May 9, 2007.
Allegations were made by Romero that on two separate occasions, Sheriff Villarosa demanded additional fees (a total of P1,500.00) and that he also received P200.00 for gasoline expenses.

Sheriff Villarosa acknowledged receiving a total of P13,000.00 from Enriqueta Laurente, as evidenced by multiple acknowledgment receipts with dates and amounts:

Of this amount, Sheriff Villarosa claimed to have turned over P10,000.00 to Romero—comprising:

For the remaining P3,000.00, he asserted that it had been directly delivered to the Officer-in-charge (OIC) Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 17, Palompon.
In addition, the final balance of P6,000.00, which should have been delivered in a timely manner, was deposited with the MTC Clerk of Court after Romero’s alleged refusal to accept it, eventually being received by Romero on April 17, 2009.

The Investigating Judge, after reviewing the records and the Report, found numerous anomalous and irregular transactions in Sheriff Villarosa’s handling of the funds.
Specific discrepancies included:

A mismatch between the sums received from Enriqueta Laurente and the amounts turned over to Romero, including early delivery of amounts not yet received from the judgment obligor.
Delays in the remittance of the final balance and failure to deposit funds on the same day as required by law.
Inconsistent assertions regarding the handling of the P3,000.00 allegedly delivered to the Clerk of Court.

The irregularities were deemed sufficient to charge Sheriff Villarosa with grave abuse of authority, conduct unbecoming of a government employee, and dishonesty.

The Investigating Judge recommended a six-month suspension along with a fine equivalent to three months’ salary, with a stern warning regarding the repetition of such offenses.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with the findings but recommended outright dismissal from service instead.

Whether Sheriff Pacifico B. Villarosa, Jr. committed irregularities amounting to grave abuse of authority, conduct unbecoming of a public official, and dishonesty in the execution of his duties.
Whether the discrepancies and delays in the receipt, handling, and remittance of funds from the Compromise Agreement, as well as the unauthorized collection of fees, violate Section 9 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the evidence presented, including acknowledgment receipts, certifications, and affidavits, is sufficient to support a finding of culpability against the sheriff.
Whether the recommended disciplinary measures, particularly the recommendation for outright dismissal by the OCA, are justified in light of the evidence of nonfeasance and irregular conduct.