A.M. No. P-124 - Ganaden vs. Bolasco

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-124)

Factual Background

Complainant charged respondent with dishonesty and misconduct arising from three incidents. First, complainant alleged that respondent demanded P13.00 as sheriff’s fee in Civil Case No. 711-0 (Carmen Flores v. Leonardo Frondarina) but issued a receipt for a lesser amount. Second, she alleged that respondent issued a private receipt for P50.00 to plaintiff Paulino Padua in Civil Case No. 427-0 for service of a writ of execution and failed to make a return of that writ. Third, she alleged misconduct by reason of delay in serving summons upon Paulita Esteban in Civil Case No. 684-0 and by entrusting service to the defendant’s nephew, Atty. Eduardo Balaoing, Jr.

Respondent’s Answer and Explanation

Respondent denied dishonesty and explained that on February 3, 1971 Atty. Demetrio Leano entrusted him with P12.60 for sheriff’s fees for service in Civil Case No. 711-0. Respondent asserted that when the summons was issued on February 4, 1971 the actual fee due was only P4.20 because the defendants were husband and wife and resided in Olongapo City rather than San Felipe, Zambales as originally stated. Respondent stated that he returned P8.40 to Atty. Leano on February 10, 1971 together with the official receipt for the correct sheriff’s fee. Respondent further claimed that he received P50.00 from Paulino Padua as a deposit to accommodate Padua and issued a private receipt at Padua’s request to save Padua time and expense, and that the money was never misappropriated. As to the service upon Paulita Esteban, respondent averred that the defendant was not at her residence and that the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel never complained about the manner of service.

Formal Investigation and Initial Recommendation

During the formal investigation complainant admitted that she had no personal or direct knowledge of the alleged irregularities and that she had no evidence to substantiate the charges, stating that her motive was only to have the proper authority determine the truth. The Investigating District Judge recommended dismissal in his report dated March 24, 1973 on the ground that complainant had no direct personal knowledge and that the interested parties allegedly aggrieved failed to appear to support the charges. The Department of Justice had, by communication dated December 5, 1972, held in abeyance action on respondent’s resignation pending the outcome of this administrative case.

Findings of Fact by the Court

The Court found certain facts to be undisputed. On two occasions respondent received public funds in connection with the performance of his duties but failed to issue the corresponding official receipts. First, on February 3, 1971 respondent received P12.60 from counsel for plaintiff in Civil Case No. 711-0 before the summons to be served were delivered to him, despite standing instructions from the clerk of court and the provincial sheriff not to accept any payment if no official receipts were available. Respondent did not issue an official receipt even after he received a booklet of official receipts on February 5 or 6, 1971. Second, respondent received P50.00 from plaintiff in Civil Case No. 427-0 and produced only a private receipt, marked Exhibit B. The Court did not find the charge of undue delay in service upon Paulita Esteban established, noting that the defendant was in Manila for the relevant period and that there was no showing that the maid at the residence was a person of suitable discretion to receive a summons. The allegation that respondent entrusted service to the defendant’s nephew was not substantiated.

Legal Violations and Reasoning

The Court concluded that respondent committed illegal exaction as penalized by Article 213, paragraph 2(b) of the Revised Penal Code for failure to issue official receipts for money collected in an official capacity. The Court further held that respondent violated Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual, which requires that no payment of any nature be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt. The Court characterized respondent’s acts and omissions as patent violations of law that disturb the ethics of public life and vitiate the integrity of the court and its personnel. The Court invoked the public service standards reflected in the source’s cited constitutional provision, namely Section I, Article XIII of the New Constitution, and in Proclamation No. 1081, to underscore the requirement of utmost integrity and strict discipline in public

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-124)

Parties and Procedural Posture

SOLEDAD V. GANADEN filed an administrative complaint against GREGORIO N. BOLASCO, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch 1, Olongapo City.
The complaint charged respondent with dishonesty and misconduct arising from acts allegedly committed in his official capacity.
The Investigating District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales submitted a report dated March 24, 1973 recommending dismissal of the complaint for lack of direct evidence.
The matter was decided en banc by the Court which reviewed the investigative record and the parties' submissions.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged that respondent demanded P13.00 as sheriff's fee in Civil Case No. 711-0 but issued a receipt for a lesser amount.
Complainant alleged that respondent issued a private receipt for P50.00 to plaintiff Paulino Padua in Civil Case No. 427-0 for service of a writ of execution but failed to return said writ.
Complainant alleged that respondent delayed service of summons upon Paulita Esteban in Civil Case No. 684-0 and entrusted the service to her nephew, Atty. Eduardo Balaoing, Jr.
Complainant admitted during formal investigation that she had no personal or direct knowledge of the charges and had no evidence to substantiate them.

Respondent's Contentions

GREGORIO N. BOLASCO denied the charges and stated that Atty. Demetrio Leano gave him P12.60 on February 3, 1971 for sheriff's fees in Civil Case No. 711-0.
Respondent asserted that the actual sheriffs fee proved to be only P4.20 because the defendants were husband and wife residing in Olongapo City and that he returned P8.40 to Atty. Leano on February 10, 1971 together with an official receipt.
Respondent maintained that he received P50.00 from Paulino Padua only as a deposit to accommodate Padua and that the money was not misappropriated.
Respondent explained that service upon Paulita Esteban was not unduly delayed because she was reportedly in Manila between December 10, 1970 and February 27, 1971 and denied entrusting service to the nephew in a manner constituting misconduct.

Investigative Findings

The Court found two undisputed facts that respondent received amounts in connection with official duties without issuing corresponding official receipts.
The Court found that on February 3, 1971 counsel for plaintiff in Civil Case No. 711-0 gave respondent P12.60 before the summons to be served were delivered to him.
The Court found that respondent received the payment despite a standing instruction from the clerk of court and the provincial sheriff not to accept payment without official receipts.
The Court found that respondent did not issue an official receipt even after he received a booklet of official receipts on February 5 or 6, 1971.
The Court found that respondent received P50.00 for service of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 427-0 and that proof of that receipt was respondent's p