A.M. No. P-01-1448 - Sabidong vs. Solas

The administrative case arose from a sworn letter-complaint dated May 29, 1999, filed by Rodolfo C. Sabidong against Nicolasito S. Solas, then Clerk of Court IV at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Iloilo City.
Sabidong charged Solas with grave and serious misconduct, dishonesty, oppression, and abuse of authority for his handling of the sale of a parcel of land.

The property in issue is Lot 11 (Lot 1280-D-4-11 of consolidation-subdivision plan [LRC] Pcs-483) located at Barangay San Vicente, Jaro, Iloilo City.
Originally registered in the name of C. N. Hodges, the land was part of the Hodges Estate.
The Sabidong family, long-time occupants since 1948, held possession of one-half of Lot 11, while the other half was occupied by Priscila Saplagio.

An ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 14706) was filed by the Hodges Estate, and on May 31, 1983, a decision ordered Priscila Saplagio to vacate her leased portion of Lot 11 and to pay corresponding rentals, attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs.
Respondent Solas, then serving as Clerk of Court III at MTCC, Branch 3, submitted an Offer to Purchase on installment for Lots 11 and 12 in October 1984.
The first offer was rejected by the Administratrix of the estate in a January 7, 1986 letter due to an existing application by the actual occupant of Lot 12.
On January 8, 1986, Solas renewed his offer to purchase Lot 11 under conditions that hinted at a potential acquisition should the occupant fail to avail the priority given in the probate proceedings.

By an Order dated November 18, 1986 in Special Proceedings No. 1672 (related to the testate settlement of the Hodges Estate), the probate court approved Solas’ offer upon noting that the occupants had not manifested an intent to purchase, and that the sale was beneficial to the estate.
A writ of possession in favor of Solas was issued on January 21, 1987, and formally executed on June 27, 1989.
A Deed of Sale With Mortgage covering Lot 11 was executed on November 21, 1994, whereby the property was conveyed to Solas on installment for a total purchase price of ₱50,000.
The original Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-11836) in the name of C. N. Hodges was cancelled, and a new title (TCT No. T-107519) was issued in the name of Solas on December 5, 1994.
Lot 11 was later subdivided into Lots 11-A and 11-B, with corresponding titles (TCT Nos. T-116467 and T-116468) issued on February 28, 1997.

Complainant’s family, particularly Trinidad Sabidong (the mother of the complainant), showed interest in buying the property after learning about its sale during the estate’s proceedings.
The family was informed by respondent Solas that all transactions must go through him and were led to believe that he acted as the legitimate representative of the estate, despite his position as a court officer.
Relying on Solas’ representations—including his status as City Sheriff—the Sabidong family made several payments: ₱10,000 (sent by a sister working abroad), ₱2,000 for documentation expenses, ₱5,000 after Trinidad’s death, and an additional ₱3,000 for expenses related to the subdivision of the lot.
Throughout the negotiations, Solas repeatedly assured the family that they would not be ejected from the property, even though he was simultaneously working to acquire title for himself.

Despite the payments made by the complainant’s family and their belief that the sale would eventually be transferred to them, Solas proceeded with legal steps to secure title over the property for himself.
A Contract to Sell was executed on June 3, 1996, apparently reflecting the understanding that the complainant’s family would eventually become the owners, but the contract later revealed Solas as the owner.
The complainant later discovered that Solas had canceled the purported sale and had withheld important documents needed for a housing loan with PAG-IBIG.
There were pending actions, including a civil case for the annulment of title and a criminal complaint for estafa, both filed by the complainant against Solas.

The administrative complaint led to several resolutions and recommendations, initially by the Court Administrator and subsequently by Executive Judges of the RTC in Iloilo City.
Investigations found that Solas misappropriated funds meant for processing the complainant’s loan application and unjustifiably canceled the contract to sell despite having received substantial payments.
Prior administrative cases against Solas (including fines for imprudence and simple misconduct) were noted, highlighting a history of irregularities in his official conduct.

The evidence established that Solas collected a total of approximately ₱20,000 from the complainant’s family under false pretenses while assuring them against eviction.
Solas’ conduct not only involved misappropriation of funds but also a deliberate misrepresentation of his authority, leading the family to remain in a state of helplessness and deception.
The culmination of the administrative inquiry resulted in finding Solas liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty, with a recommended penalty of a six-month salary forfeiture, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Whether respondent Solas, as a court officer, violated Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code by acquiring property (Lot 11) while it was still “in litigation.”

Determining if the property was still subject to judicial settlement proceedings at the time of the transaction.
Assessing whether the timing of the sale circumvents the disqualification provision since the litigation was pending in a different court than the one where Solas served.

Evaluating his conduct in misrepresenting himself as the legitimate representative of the estate.
Assessing the misappropriation of funds received from the complainant’s family and the cancellation of the contract to sell.

Whether Solas’ position and his use of inside information constituted an abuse of authority.

Considering his role as Clerk of Court and later as City Sheriff in influencing the transaction.
Scrutinizing the extent to which his official position was used to guarantee the family's continued possession while securing the property for himself.

Whether the subsequent administrative and disciplinary proceedings properly addressed the irregularities in Solas’ conduct.

Analyzing if the recommended penalties, including the forfeiture of six months’ salary, are justified in light of his prior misconduct and the evidence on record.