A.M. No. P-19-3911 - Rural Bank of Talisay , Inc. vs. Gimeno

Complainant: Rural Bank of Talisay (Cebu), Inc., represented by its president, Adele V. Villo.
Respondent: Manuel H. Gimeno, Sheriff IV, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City.
Underlying transaction: On November 23, 2007, Arnie A. Cabanero secured a credit accommodation worth P150,000.00 from the bank, which was backed by a real estate mortgage over a property registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 161323.
Due to delinquency in payment by Cabanero, the bank subsequently demanded settlement of his overdue account and initiated proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage.

The foreclosure complaint was raffled to the respondent in his capacity as sheriff designate of RTC, Branch 19, Cebu City.
On December 8, 2011, the respondent issued a Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale and presented an undated bill for his services, which included the cost of publication.
The bank’s representative disbursed an amount of P10,000.00 to the respondent, intended for the publication cost of the notice.
The December 2011 Notice slated a public auction on January 25, 2012.

In January 2012, Cebu Daily News (a newspaper of general circulation) contacted the complainant demanding payment for publication, as they had not received any funds despite the bank’s claim that the money was already paid to the respondent.
A subsequent Second Amended Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, setting the auction for February 16, 2012, was prepared by the respondent after complainant’s inquiry.
Despite assurances by the respondent that he would settle the publication payment with Cebu Daily News, the notice was never published, and the respondent failed to furnish the requisite sheriff’s certificate of sale post-auction.

The complainant reported the matter to the Executive Judge of the RTC, prompting an investigation conducted by the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC).
In its August 10, 2012 report, the OCC recommended administrative sanctions against the respondent.
It was confirmed that the respondent had admitted receiving the P10,000.00 meant for publication but had diverted the funds to pay for his mother’s hospital expenses.
Despite his acknowledgment of the receipt of funds, the respondent failed to carry out the publication duties as required.

The RTC Executive Judge forwarded the complaint to the OCA, which insisted on a formal under-oath complaint.
A formal complaint was duly filed, leading to a subsequent OCA investigation.

In his comment, the respondent admitted to appropriating the publication cost money for personal purposes, citing his mother’s ill health as the reason for the diversion.
He claimed that, in 22 years of service, this was his first offense and maintained that he had acted under dire circumstances.
However, the OCA, in its April 6, 2017 Report and Recommendation, ruled that his conduct constituted gross misconduct and dishonesty, tarnishing the reputation of the judiciary, and recommended his dismissal from service.

Whether the respondent’s appropriation of funds intended for the publication of the foreclosure notice amounted to grave misconduct.

Determination if his action—using P10,000.00 for personal benefit rather than for the intended court publication—constitutes a violation of duty.
Consideration of whether such an act amounts to corruption and a breach of the ethical standards required of court personnel.

Whether the respondent’s failure to publish the foreclosure notices, despite multiple assurances and opportunities to rectify the omission, demonstrates a departure from his mandated ethical conduct.

Analysis of the impact his negligence had on the integrity and reputation of the judicial process.
Examination of his lack of timely response and subsequent attempts at remediation.

Whether his length of service and previous clean record should serve as mitigating factors in the imposition of disciplinary action.

Evaluation of the argument that an extended service record could potentially justify a lighter penalty, notwithstanding the gravity of the misconduct.
Balancing of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the context of judicial accountability.