Title
PAG-IBIG Fund vs. Arimado
Case
A.M. No. P-06-2197
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2007
Sheriff misappropriated P272,000 from PAG-IBIG auction, admitted personal use, breached compromise agreement, dismissed for dishonesty, forfeited benefits, barred from government service.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-06-2197)

Facts of the Case

The complaint stemmed from an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage on the property of Venus Rosauro, which was sold at public auction on January 14, 2000. The highest bidder, Fidel See, paid a bid price of P272,000.00, which Arimado received and subsequently deposited in the Office of the Clerk of Court. However, after failing to remit the bid amount to PAG-IBIG, complications arose when See sought possession of the property through a complaint for specific performance against both PAG-IBIG and Arimado.

Compromise Agreement and Breach

During the litigation, a Compromise Agreement was forged on October 15, 2001, wherein Arimado acknowledged personal use of the bid price and committed to pay PAG-IBIG P272,000.00 by October 31, 2001, to release the title to the property. In addition, he was to reimburse See with P28,000.00 for litigation expenses. The RTC approved this agreement on October 31, 2001. However, Arimado failed to fulfill his obligations under this agreement, prompting Britanico to pursue the administrative complaint.

Respondent’s Defense

In his September 9, 2005 Comment on the Complaint, Arimado argued that he had genuinely attempted to deliver the funds to PAG-IBIG but was met with resistance, leading him to deposit the funds with the Clerk of Court. He claimed that personal circumstances, including his wife's hospital expenses, forced him to use the entrusted funds. He further contended that he sought an installment payment plan, which PAG-IBIG initially accepted, but rejected when he attempted to make a payment.

Evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reviewed the case and noted Arimado's misappropriation of funds entrusted to him due to his position. The OCA highlighted that dishonesty erodes public trust in judicial institutions and recommended his dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits (except accrued leaves) and disqualification for future government employment.

Conclu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.