A.M. No. MTJ-03-1473 - Alintana de Pacete vs. Garillo

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1473)

Factual Background

Complainant alleged that sometime in 1994, her father-in-law Ricardo Pacete mortgaged three (3) hectares of agricultural land to one of his daughters-in-law, Kemimakrin V. Pacete, under an agreement that Ricardo would redeem the property after five (5) years. The land was located at Barangay Salvacion, Rizal, Occidental Mindoro. As the redemption date approached, Ricardo borrowed from complainant P47,000 to pay Kemimakrin. Complainant allegedly secured P40,000 from the Salvacion United Farmer’s Cooperative and supplemented the balance with P7,000 from her own funds.

On the redemption date, Kemimakrin refused to accept the P47,000, asserting that she had already paid off a prior mortgage on the land. The parties failed to reach an amicable settlement through Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings, and the authorities issued a certification authorizing the filing of a civil action.

Complainant narrated that thereafter she approached respondent judge. Respondent allegedly required her to deposit the P47,000 so he could issue summons to Kemimakrin. Complainant complied and delivered the amount to respondent at his residence in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

Initiation of Civil Case and Subsequent Deposits

On May 31, 2000, Ricardo Pacete filed a complaint for tender of payment and consignation before respondent’s sala, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 76. After Kemimakrin filed her answer, respondent allegedly required Ricardo to deposit an additional amount of P31,000. Ricardo did not have the required amount, so he allegedly approached complainant again and borrowed the P31,000 from her. Ricardo then personally handed the P31,000 cash to respondent.

Complainant further alleged that respondent failed to deliver the deposited sums to Kemimakrin, and that respondent also did not return to his sala where complainant and Ricardo had waited for him. Complainant later demanded the return of the money.

Letters Acknowledging Receipt and Promises to Pay

Complainant’s narrative included respondent’s written communications. On October 5, 2000, respondent wrote the Salvacion United Farmer’s Cooperative acknowledging receipt of P78,000 from complainant and explained that the money had been stolen, while seeking “some consideration.” In a subsequent letter, respondent stated he would attend a convention in Manila and would have money ready by the time he returned. When he failed to honor this promise, he again wrote complainant on March 26, 2001, promising payment after two (2) weeks, but still did not pay. Respondent continued to issue further promises without fulfillment.

Complainant added that the interest on her loan from the cooperative continued to accrue, and she claimed she was being overwhelmed by debt.

Respondent’s Admission and Explanation

In his comment dated May 24, 2002, respondent admitted having received a total of P78,000 deposited with him as the redemption price for the mortgaged property in Civil Case No. 76 pending before his court. He also admitted that he had lost the money but maintained he did not misappropriate it.

Respondent’s explanation was that, while traveling toward the town of Rizal, he stopped at a gasoline station to fill his service jeep. He allegedly paid at the counter and placed the envelope containing court records and the money over the glass counter. He then proceeded to look for other items inside the store. When he returned to the counter, he allegedly discovered that the envelope was gone. He claimed he realized he had been the victim of larceny and sought to locate the money inside the store, but his efforts proved futile.

Respondent begged for indulgence due to negligence and promised to pay complainant the P78,000 with interest.

Office of the Court Administrator’s Report and Findings

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., issued its report dated November 22, 2002. The OCA found respondent liable for violating Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95 and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and recommended the penalty of dismissal. On January 15, 2003, the Court resolved to re-docket the matter as a regular administrative matter.

The Court then affirmed the OCA’s findings that respondent violated Circular No. 50-95.

Legal Basis: Violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95

The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95, which governed the handling of court fiduciary funds. The Circular required, among others, that all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines by the Clerk of Court within twenty four (24) hours upon receipt. In localities without Land Bank branches, fiduciary collections had to be deposited with the provincial, city, or municipal treasurer. Deposits were to be made in the name of the court, with the Clerk of Court and the Executive Judge as authorized signatories. The Court underscored that these provisions were mandatory and were designed to ensure full accountability for government funds.

The Court further stressed that the safekeeping of funds and collections was essential to the orderly administration of justice.

The Court’s Assessment of Respondent’s Liability

By respondent’s own admissions, the Court held it was clear that he violated the mandatory provisions of Circular No. 50-95 concerning fiduciary funds. Although respondent denied misappropriation and claimed theft, the Court ruled that his liability for the Circular violation could not be denied.

The Court found respondent’s version inconsistent with good faith. The Court considered it highly improper and irregular for respondent to receive the consignation money at his home, and then fail to remit the amounts officially for deposit to the authorized bank. The Court also rejected respondent’s theft narrative as lacking credibility. The explanation attributed the loss to respondent’s alleged negligent handling of a sealed envelope bulging with many bills left unattended on a glass counter while he shopped at a gasoline station. The Court noted that after respondent allegedly discovered the money was gone, he did not report the incident to the police, and his efforts were limited to inquiries with a sales clerk. The Court held that respondent did not provide a detailed account substantiating the loss with sufficient specificity to show the conduct of a responsible and cautious court official.

The Court weighed complainant’s detailed allegations against respondent’s bare denial. It held that complainant’s claim that respondent misappropriated the money prevailed over respondent’s unsubstantiated explanation. The Court also observed that respondent’s first letter notifying complainant of the alleged theft was written only months after the supposed incident and after repeated demands for return of the money.

Judicial Conduct Standards and Gross Misconduct

The Court reiterated its position that it would not tolerate conduct violating norms of public accountability or diminishing the people’s faith in the justice system. It restated that a judge must be a symbol of rectitude and propriety and must preserve the good name of the court.

Invoking the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court applied C

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1473)

The case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Myra M. Alintana de Pacete against Judge Josefino A. Garillo, then of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro.
The complaint charged the respondent judge with dishonesty, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Court ultimately dismissed the respondent from the service and imposed forfeiture of benefits, subject to an exception for accrued leaves.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant, Myra Alintana de Pacete, initiated the administrative proceedings against the respondent judge for alleged misconduct related to fiduciary handling of money.
The respondent was charged as a judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro.
The Court acted on the matter as an administrative proceeding after it resolved, on January 15, 2003, to re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter.
The Court concurred with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) findings that the respondent violated Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95 and that the recommended penalty was dismissal.
The Court’s disposition took effect immediately upon promulgation.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant alleged that in 1994, her father-in-law, Ricardo Pacete, mortgaged three (3) hectares of agricultural land to a daughter-in-law, Kemimakrin V. Pacete, conditioned on redemption after five (5) years.
As the redemption date approached, Ricardo allegedly borrowed P47,000 from the complainant to pay Kemimakrin.
The complainant allegedly secured P40,000 from the Salvacion United Farmer’s Cooperative and added P7,000 from her own funds to make up the total P47,000.
On the redemption date, Kemimakrin refused to accept the P47,000, asserting that she had already paid off a prior mortgage on the land.
After conciliatory proceedings under Katarungang Pambarangay, the parties were given a certification to file a civil action.
The complainant alleged that she then approached the respondent judge, who required her to deposit with him the P47,000 to facilitate the issuance of summons to Kemimakrin, and that she delivered the amount to the respondent at his residence.
On May 31, 2000, Ricardo filed a civil action for tender of payment and consignation before the respondent’s sala, docketed as Civil Case No. 76.
After Kemimakrin filed her answer, the respondent allegedly required Ricardo to deposit an additional P31,000, and Ricardo allegedly obtained the amount by borrowing from the complainant.
The complainant alleged that Ricardo personally handed the P31,000 cash to the respondent, and that the respondent failed to deliver the deposited sums totaling P78,000 to Kemimakrin.
The complainant alleged that the respondent also never returned to his sala where they had waited and later demanded return of the money.
The respondent allegedly wrote the Salvacion United Farmer’s Cooperative on October 5, 2000, acknowledging receipt of the P78,000 and claiming that the money was stolen while he was expecting to pay or have money ready later.
The respondent allegedly failed to keep the promises reflected in subsequent letters, including another promise dated March 26, 2001, and a further subsequent letter.
The complainant averred that interest on the cooperative loan continued to accrue and that she was being buried in debt due to the respondent’s failure to return the entrusted money.

Respondent’s Admissions and Defense

In his comment dated May 24, 2002, the respondent admitted receiving a total of P78,000 deposited with him as redemption price for the mortgaged property in Civil Case No. 76 pending before his court.
The respondent admitted having lost the money but denied misappropriation, claiming he was a victim of larceny.
The respondent’s account was that while traveling, he stopped at a gasoline station, paid for gasoline at the counter, and placed an envelope containing case records and the money over the glass counter.
The respondent claimed that after he went inside the store and returned, he discovered the envelope had vanished and that he then realized he had been the victim of larceny.
The respondent begged for indulgence, attributed the loss to negligence, and promised to repay the P78,000 with interest.
The Court treated the respondent’s admissions of receipt and loss as establishing the occurrence of fiduciary handling within his judicial custody.

Administrative Findings

The OCA, through Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., found the respondent liable for violating Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95 and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and recommended the penalty of dismissal.
The Court agreed with the OCA’s finding that the respondent