490 Phil. 481
PER CURIAM:
“Complainant, one of the defendant-heirs in the partition case, alleges that respondent, who was appointed as one of the commissioners to effect the partition, attempted to extort money from him and his other co-heirs in the amount of P3,000.00. This demand was made in a letter dated 17 December 2002 sent to him by respondent where he also acknowledged receipt of the sum of P9,000.00 from Mr. Erle Dwight Tubat, Wilma Sojor and Heirs of Jeseso Tubat. Complainant claims that the receipt by respondent of the amount of P9,000.00 and demanding P3,000.00 from him (sic) and his (sic) co-heirs were done without the express authority of Presiding Judge Araceli Alafriz.In her Investigation, Report and Recommendation[4] dated January 16, 2004, Judge Alafriz notes that in 1999, she filed Administrative Matter No. 99-769-P (Judge Araceli S. Alafriz v. Victoriano S. Ragay, Jr.) against respondent for a similar offense. However, the case was dismissed for being unsubstantiated.
In his comment, respondent explains that Mrs. Sojor, a defendant in the partition case, voluntarily gave the amount of P3,000.00 to the commissioners and a receipt was issued to her. The money was intended for gasoline or transportation expenses, fees in securing the necessary documents and construction expenses in building indicators to determine the boundaries of the involved properties.
Respondent avers that Mrs. Sojor suggested that a letter also be sent to her co-heirs to inform them that she already gave the amount of P3,000.00 to the commissioners and that as co-heirs, they should also share in the cost of carrying out the partition. This was the reason why the 17 December 2002 letter was sent to complainant.
Respondent claims that his designation as the officer-in-charge ceased as early as 15 January 2003 when their Branch Clerk of Court reported back for work. Thus, he is not sure whether Erle Tubat and the heirs of the late Jeseso had given their share in the expenses to the commissioned surveyors.
In this Court’s Resolution dated 3 September 2003, the administrative complaint was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC of Dumaguete City for investigation, report and recommendation.
Executive Judge Araceli S. Alafriz reported that during the investigation, respondent admitted that he was not the appointed Chairman of the Commission tasked to partition the properties but merely assumed its chairmanship as then designated OIC of Branch 41. Respondent has been with the court for 28 years, and he is aware that all Commissioners in a partition case are appointed by the court. As the OIC, however, he had to take over the responsibilities and functions of the Branch Clerk of Court who was then on leave of absence.
Respondent also admitted that he sent copies of the 17 December 2002 letter to the defendants in the partition case, but he did not consult the Presiding Judge nor did he attach copies of the letters to the records of the partition case.
Respondent admittedly received the amount of P3,000.00 from Mrs. Sojor, but he alleged that he gave the amount to the surveyors. He could not produce however the receipt which he alleged was with Mrs. Sojor.”
Court: How long have you been working with the Court from the time you were appointed?What compounds respondent’s offense is the fact that he “requested” complainant to “share” in the expenses to be incurred in effecting the partition and received the amount of P3,000.00 from one of the parties without authority from the court. According to him, he was only constrained, upon Mrs. Sojor’s insistence, to write a letter to the defendants requesting them to contribute to the expenses for partition. He said:
Mr. Ragay: 28 years.
Court: And so you were aware that all commissioners are appointed by the Court?
Mr. Ragay: Yes.
Court: And despite of (sic) that you assumed the chairmanship even if there was no order appointing you?
Mr. Ragay: I was of the belief that as Officer-in-Charge or Acting Branch Clerk of Court I also assumed the responsibility of the Branch Clerk of Court, all its functions and responsibilities.[7]
Q: And you also mentioned in your letter to Mrs. Evelyn Honculada that this is pursuant to the Order of the Court dated October 16, 2002?Respondent would impress upon this Court that he was just performing his duty out of a desire to speed up the partition. However, his actions speak more of feigned innocence and misplaced zeal. If the transaction was truly above board, respondent would and should have informed the Presiding Judge of his actions as soon as it was possible for him to do so, and attached a copy of his letter dated December 17, 2002 to the records of the case. However, as he himself admitted, respondent did not only fail to inform the Presiding Judge of Branch 41 of his actions, he also did not attach a copy of his solicitation letter to the records of the case. He said:
A: With regard to the sharing of the expenses, I place[d] there the quotation “pro-rata”. I have no intention really of forcing them. Actually, as Officer-in-Charge I knew that all the money will be deposited to the Clerk of Court or to the Officer-in-Charge.
Q: How could you know how much the expenses would be when there was no amount given yet by the engineer appointed by the Court?
A: I was not thinking of any amount at that time but because of Mrs. Sojor who insisted that I should write a letter to the defendants, so I was constrained to heed to her request. When we started relocating the properties the surveyor recommended that they will need funding in regard to the relocation of the properties because they will be hiring laborers and they will be constructing or make these monuments so that they can determine the metes and bounds of the properties so that they can place the monuments that is why I was constrained to write to them with regard to that. I was not thinking of the whole expenses, only for the start. We even planned out that every amount that will be given and spent in the operation we will list them.
Q: Alright, the ocular inspection conducted by you with the knowledge of the Court?
A: When we started, Ma’am? No, the Court was not around so because…when we did that, Ma’am, this was not because we want to violate or to disregard the Honorable Court. The purpose of starting the work since they assumed as Commissioner, to be able to direct the questioned properties and so that the surveyor could already make the necessary report before an actual relocation of the property and partition of the property can be done.[8]
Court: Were these letters sent by you to the parties attached to the record of the case?Moreover, respondent failed to substantiate his claim that he gave this amount to the surveyors. His declaration to the effect that the money was given to the surveyors/engineers is self-serving and unsupported by any evidence despite the opportunity given to him to present the receipt or a photocopy thereof issued by the supposed recipients.
Mr. Ragay: It is personal letter.
Court: If it is personal you are not acting as chairman?
Mr. Ragay: As Officer-in-Charge…I think I have attached a letter. I cannot remember now.
Court: It is not attached to the records of the case. Did you inform the Court that you received the amount as Acting Commissioner?
Mr. Ragay: No, your Honor, because that amount is personal money of Mrs. Sojor. It was her desire to start doing our job.[9]
Sec. 22. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service.The penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service, without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.[10]
The following are grave offenses with corresponding penalties:
…
(k) Soliciting or accepting directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which in the course of his official duties or in connection with any operations being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of his office. The propriety or impropriety of the foregoing shall be determined by its value, kinship, or relationship between giver and receiver and the motivation. A thing of monetary value is one which is evidently or manifestly excessive by its very nature.
1st Offense – Dismissal…. (emphasis in the original)