AM P 95 1120; (March, 1995) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-95-1120. March 7, 1995. VIRGILIO HERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. GAUDIOSO BORJA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Naga City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Virgilio Hernandez obtained a loan from Rafael Chancoco, secured by a chattel mortgage. Upon default, Chancoco allegedly initiated extrajudicial foreclosure. Respondent Sheriff Gaudioso Borja collected a total of P15,000 from Hernandez, purportedly as redemption money and sheriff’s fees, issuing only a handwritten receipt. Despite receiving payment, Borja failed to release the mortgaged chattels to Hernandez. The Clerk of Court investigated and, after Borja ignored directives to settle, referred the case to the Executive Judge for formal investigation.
During the investigation, it was established that no actual application for extrajudicial foreclosure had been filed with the Clerk of Court. Borja repeatedly failed to attend hearings or present evidence, thereby waiving his right to be heard. The investigation also revealed that Borja had a prior administrative record where he was suspended for six months for a similar offense involving dishonesty.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Gaudioso Borja is administratively liable for his actions concerning the collection of money from complainant Hernandez.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable and is dismissed from service. The Court found that Borja acted with criminal intent. The foreclosure proceeding was spurious, as no application was filed; therefore, Borja had no official authority to collect any money. His acceptance of P15,000 without issuing an official receipt violated auditing rules and constituted misappropriation, as he neither delivered the chattels nor accounted for the funds. His failure to offer any explanation or evidence solidified the conclusion of dishonesty.
The act is gravely prejudicial to the best interest of the service. As a court personnel, Borja is held to the highest standards of integrity and accountability. His prior similar offense and unrepentant behavior, demonstrated by his non-cooperation with the investigation, are aggravating circumstances. His lengthy government service cannot mitigate such serious misconduct. Thus, the penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, is warranted to uphold public trust in the judiciary.