Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83835:58601&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:18:56+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-14-3237 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3256-P], October 21, 2014 - JEAN PAUL V. GILLERA, SUZETTE P. GILLERA, ATTY. JILLINA M. GERODIAS, AND IBARRA BARCEBAL, Complainants, v. MARIA CONSUELO JOIE A. LEONEN, AND FAJARDO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 93, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, Respondent.
JEAN PAUL V. GILLERA, SUZETTE P. GILLERA, ATTY. JILLINA M. GERODIAS, AND IBARRA BARCEBAL, Complainants, v. MARIA CONSUELO JOIE A. LEONEN, AND FAJARDO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 93, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, Respondent.
On July 6, 2011, this court resolved to refer the complaint to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in San Pedro, Laguna, for "investigation, report and recommendation."3 The report4 summarized the facts as follows.
This court adopts the factual findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.
Sheriffs, our front-line representatives,28 play a crucial role in our justice system, having the important task of executing our courts' final judgments.29 Sheriffs must conduct themselves with integrity at all times as "once he[/she] loses the people's trust, he[/she] diminishes the people's faith in the judiciary."30 Respondent's acts failed to meet the high standards of conduct expected from the position held.
Respondent only paid one (1) monthly rental during the entire three (3) years she occupied the house and lot.31 She anchored her non-payment on an alleged agreement with complainant.Suzette Gillera that rental arrears would be written off if respondent buys the house and lot, and her contention that her mother did buy the house and lot.
There is overwhelming evidence that original copies of the documents presented by respondent were inexistent, or if they exist, were mere forgeries. Respondent in the ejectment suit filed against her was asked to produce the original copies of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the official receipt she presented there as proof-of the consummation of the sale of the property between her mother and Hercules but she was unable to do so. Hence, the presumption that the original copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale is inexistent or manufactured arises. During the investigation of this case, respondent presented what she referred to as an original copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale bearing the original signature of her mother. But the signatures of the vendors were mere photocopies. Confronted with this fact, she committed to present the copy bearing the original signatures of the vendor but was unable to do so. It is therefore evident that respondent merely filled up her mother's name on the photocopy of the blank Deed of Absolute Sale furnished to her by Hercules at the beginning of their transaction.
WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Maria Consuelo Joie A. Fajardo GUILTY of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. She is DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service, including in government-owned or controlled corporations.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., and Del Castillo, JJ., on official leave.
1Rollo, pp. 1-3. The complaint dated September 16, 2009 was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on September 24, 2009.
2 Id. at 1-2 and 763.
28Lopez v. Ramos, 500 Phil. 408, 417 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
29Go v. Hortaleza, 578 Phil. 377, 382 (2008) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
30Lopez v. Ramos, 500 P,hil. 408, 417 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], citing Visitacion, Jr. v. Ediza, 414 Phil. 699, 703 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division]; Go v. Hortaleza, 578 Phil. 377, 386 (2008) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
32 Id. at 768 and 796.
34Adtani v. Manio, 555 Phil. 211,214 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], citing Martinez v. Muñoz, 319 Phil. 82, 91 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
35Rollo, pp. 769 and 796.
36 Id. at 770 and 797.
39 Id. at 769 and 796.
40 Id. at 769 and 797.
41 Id. at 770 and 797.
42Villordon v. Avila, A.M. No. P-10-2809, August 10, 2012, 678 SCRA 247, 255 [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing Aldecoa-Delorino v. Remigio-Versoza, 616 Phil. 8-12, 824 (2009) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
43 Id., citing Retired Employee, Municipal Trial Court, Sibonga, Cebu v. Manubag, A.M. No. P-10-2833, December 14,2010,638 SCRA 86, 91 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
44 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19 (1999), otherwise known as the "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service."
45 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19 (1999), Rule IV, sec. 52(A)(1).
46 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19 (1999), Rule IV, sec. 58(a).
47Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, 414 Phil. 590, 600-601 (2001) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
48Romero v. Villarosa, Jr., A.M. No. P-11-2913, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA 32, 45 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
50 Id., citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, A.M. No. P-10-2788, January 18, 2011, 639 SCRA 633, 639 [Per Curiam, En Banc].

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.