A.M. No. P-131, P-154 - Valencia vs. Pamisaran

The case involves administrative matters against Gregorio Pamisaran, a deputy sheriff of Branch IV (Calauag) of the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province.
Two separate administrative complaints were filed against him:

A related third incident is noted in Civil Case No. C-418 (Dinglasan vs. Camama) wherein a similar complaint of negligence and misappropriation of funds was raised.

Complaint by Francisco Valencia brought charges that Pamisaran converted to his own use the sum of ₱1,000.00 collected as proceeds of a money judgment.
The funds were delivered to him as part of his official position and stewardship over litigants’ funds.
Although the amount was received on December 18, 1969, it was only turned over to the complainant’s lawyer on July 15, 1970—more than six months later—

The investigating judge in his report noted that while the charge of negligence was “not clear,” the charge of misappropriation was duly substantiated.

Complaint by Estrella Borlongan accused Pamisaran of converting to his own use the sum of ₱4,600.00.
The amount was delivered to him on July 29, 1972 by Mrs. Borlongan as redemption money for a property redeemed under Rule 39, Section 31 of the Rules of Court.
The funds were intended for transmittal to Mr. Vicente A. Salumbides, who was to be recognized as owner in fee simple of the property.
At the time of the hearing, almost a year later, Pamisaran had still not remitted the funds and gave an excuse of being out of town for fifteen days.
This incident further demonstrated his habitual delay in the prompt execution of his official duties.

In Civil Case No. C-418, Pamisaran was similarly charged with negligence in releasing funds.
The case revealed that out of ₱2,910.00, only ₱2,210.00 was returned to the plaintiff, leaving a balance of ₱700.00 unpaid.
Although not directly part of the administrative proceedings, this incident contributed to the overall assessment of his conduct.

Multiple recorded instances exhibited his inability to handle funds promptly, which repeatedly led to misappropriation or conversion for personal use.
His claim of “mutual agreement” regarding the retention of funds was refuted by his own certificate acknowledging receipt and the promise to pay within two months.
The persistent failures showcased a pattern that undermined public confidence in the judiciary, by embroiling litigants in further disputes and litigation.

Whether Gregorio Pamisaran, by delaying the turnover and ultimately converting funds for his personal use, breached the fiduciary responsibilities inherent in his office as a deputy sheriff.

The timely delivery of funds entrusted to him by litigants was a critical issue.
Whether the delay and conversion constituted misappropriation beyond mere negligence.

Whether Pamisaran’s repeated acts of misconduct, as evidenced in the various cases, demonstrated a habitual pattern that impaired the public image of the administration of justice.
Whether any mitigating circumstances could be given in his favor, particularly in light of his claim of a “mutual agreement” regarding the retention of funds.
The accountability mechanisms regarding funds collected and handled under the official capacity of a court officer.