A.M. No. P-01-1448. June 25, 2013.* (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.

99-664-P)
RODOLFO C. SABIDONG, complainant, vs. NICOLASITO S.
SOLAS (Clerk of Court IV), respondent.

Administrative Law; Court Personnel; Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the

Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from acquiring
property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or territory of their
courts.―Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers
such as clerks of court from acquiring property involved in litigation within
the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. Said provision reads: Article 1491.
The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
auction, either in person or through the mediation of another: x x x x (5)
Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts,
and other officers and employees connected with the administration of
justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution
before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise
their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights
which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by
virtue of their profession. x x x x (Emphasis supplied.) The rationale
advanced for the prohibition is that public policy disallows the transactions in
view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the relation of trust and
confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these persons. “In so
providing, the Code tends to prevent fraud, or more precisely, tends not to
give occasion for fraud, which is what can and must be done.” For the
prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the property must take place
during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Where the
property is acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of
paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.
Remedial Law; Probate Proceedings; The rule is that as long as the
order for the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the
probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated.―A

_______________

* EN BANC.

304

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Sabidong vs. Solas

thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation

over it in court, but also from the moment that it becomes subject to the
judicial action of the judge. A property forming part of the estate under
judicial settlement continues to be subject of litigation until the probate court
issues an order declaring the estate proceedings closed and terminated. The
rule is that as long as the order for the distribution of the estate has not been
complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and
terminated. The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under
administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate
delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. Since there is no evidence
to show that Sp. Proc. No. 1672 in the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 27, had already
been closed and terminated at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale
With Mortgage dated November 21, 1994, Lot 11 is still deemed to be “in
litigation” subject to the operation of Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code.
Administrative Law; Misconduct; Misconduct is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior
as well as gross negligence by a public officer. To warrant dismissal from
service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty,
momentous and not trifling.―Misconduct is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as
well as gross negligence by a public officer. To warrant dismissal from
service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty,
momentous and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention
and not a mere error of judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct
relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer’s
official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office.
Same; Dishonesty; Dishonesty is the “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
defraud or betray; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty,
probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and
straightforwardness.”―Dishonesty is the “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
defraud or betray; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty,
probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and
straightforwardness.” In this case, respondent deceived complainant’s family
who were led to believe that he is the legal representa-

305

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 305

Sabidong vs. Solas

tive of the Hodges Estate, or at least possessed of such power to intercede

for overstaying occupants of the estate’s properties like complainant.
Boasting of his position as a court officer, a City Sheriff at that,
complainant’s family completely relied on his repeated assurance that they
will not be ejected from the premises. Upon learning that the lot they were
occupying was for sale and that they had to negotiate for it through
respondent, complainant’s family readily gave the amounts he demanded and,
along with Saplagio, complied with the requirements for a loan application
with PAG-IBIG. All the while and unknown to complainant’s family,
respondent was actually working to acquire Lot 11 for himself.
Same; Court Personnel; To preserve decency within the judiciary, court
personnel must comply with just contractual obligations, act fairly and adhere
to high ethical standards.―In Re: Complaint Filed by Paz De Vera Lazaro
Against Edna Magallanes, Court Stenographer III, RTC Br. 28 and
Bonifacio G. Magallanes, Process Server, RTC Br. 30, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya, 671 SCRA 1 (2012), the Court stressed that to preserve decency
within the judiciary, court personnel must comply with just contractual
obligations, act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards. In that case, we
said that court employees are expected to be paragons of uprightness,
fairness and honesty not only in their official conduct but also in their
personal dealings, including business and commercial transactions to avoid
becoming the court’s albatross of infamy.
Same; Public Officers; Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
mandates that public officials and employees shall remain true to the people
at all times.―More importantly, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 or
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees mandates that public officials and employees shall remain true to
the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They
shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order,
public safety and public interest.
Same; Same; Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (URACCS); Dishonesty; Grave Misconduct; Under Section 52, Rule
IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in

306

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

the Civil Service, dishonesty and grave misconduct are classified as grave
offenses with the corresponding penalty of dismissal for the first
offense.―Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and grave misconduct are classified as
grave offenses with the corresponding penalty of dismissal for the first
offense. Section 58(a) states that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it
the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the
perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.
Same; Same; Same; Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS) provides that mitigating circumstances
attendant to the commission of the offense should be considered in the
determination of the penalty to be imposed on the erring government
employee.―Section 53 further provides that mitigating circumstances
attendant to the commission of the offense should be considered in the
determination of the penalty to be imposed on the erring government
employee. However, no such mitigating circumstance had been shown. On
the contrary, respondent had been previously held administratively liable for
irregularities in the performance of his duties as Clerk of Court. In A.M. No.
P-01-1484, this Court imposed on respondent a fine of P5,000 for acting
imprudently in notarizing documents and administering oath on matters alien
to his official duties. And in A.M. Nos. P-08-2567 (formerly OCA IPI No.
99-670-P) and P-08-2568 (formerly OCA IPI No. 99-753-P), respondent was
found liable for simple misconduct and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his
three (3) months salary to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Grave and

Serious Misconduct, Dishonesty, Oppression and Abuse of Authority.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
The present administrative case stemmed from a sworn letter-
complaint1 dated May 29, 1999 filed before this Court by

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 1-11.

307

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 307

Sabidong vs. Solas

Rodolfo C. Sabidong (complainant) charging respondent Nicolasito S.

Solas, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Iloilo
City with grave and serious misconduct, dishonesty, oppression and
abuse of authority.
The Facts
Trinidad Sabidong, complainant’s mother, is one of the longtime
occupants of a parcel of land, designated as Lot 11 (Lot 1280-D-4-11
of consolidation-subdivision plan [LRC] Pcs-483) originally registered in
the name of C. N. Hodges and situated at Barangay San Vicente, Jaro,
Iloilo City.2 The Sabidongs are in possession of one-half portion of Lot
11 of the said Estate (Hodges Estate), as the other half-portion was
occupied by Priscila Saplagio. Lot 11 was the subject of an ejectment
suit filed by the Hodges Estate, docketed as Civil Case No. 14706 of the
MTCC Iloilo City, Branch 4 (“Rosita R. Natividad in her capacity as
Administratrix of C.N. Hodges Estate, plaintiff vs. Priscila Saplagio,
defendant”). On May 31, 1983, a decision was rendered in said case
ordering the defendant to immediately vacate the portion of Lot 11 leased
to her and to pay the plaintiff rentals due, attorney’s fees, expenses and
costs.3 At the time, respondent was the Clerk of Court III of MTCC,
Branch 3, Iloilo City.
Sometime in October 1984, respondent submitted an Offer to
Purchase on installment Lots 11 and 12. In a letter dated January 7,
1986, the Administratrix of the Hodges Estate rejected respondent’s
offer in view of an application to purchase already filed by the actual
occupant of Lot 12, “in line with the policy of the Probate Court to give
priority to the actual occupants in awarding approval of Offers”. While
the check for initial down payment tendered by respondent was returned
to him, he was nevertheless informed that he may file an offer to purchase
Lot 11 and that if he could put up a

_______________
2 Id., at pp. 12-13.
3 Id., at pp. 14-15.

308

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

sufficient down payment, the Estate could immediately endorse it for

approval of the Probate Court so that the property can be awarded to
him “should the occupant fail to avail of the priority given to them.”4
The following day, January 8, 1986, respondent again submitted an
Offer to Purchase Lot 11 with an area of 234 square meters for the
amount of P35,100. Under the Order dated November 18, 1986 issued
by the probate court (Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 27) in Special
Proceedings No. 1672 (“Testate Estate of the Late Charles Newton
Hodges, Rosita R. Natividad, Administratrix”), respondent’s Offer to
Purchase Lot 11 was approved upon the court’s observation that the
occupants of the subject lots “have not manifested their desire to
purchase the lots they are occupying up to this date and considering time
restraint and considering further, that the sales in favor of the x x x
offerors are most beneficial to the estate x x x”. On January 21, 1987, the
probate court issued another Order granting respondent’s motion for
issuance of a writ of possession in his favor. The writ of possession over
Lot 11 was eventually issued on June 27, 1989.5
On November 21, 1994, a Deed of Sale With Mortgage covering
Lot 11 was executed between respondent and the Hodges Estate
represented by its Administratrix, Mrs. Ruth R. Diocares. Lot 11 was
thereby conveyed to respondent on installment for the total purchase
price of P50,000. Consequently, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
T-11836 in the name of C. N. Hodges was cancelled and a new
certificate of title, TCT No. T-107519 in the name of respondent was
issued on December 5, 1994. Lot 11 was later subdivided into two lots,
Lots 11-A and 11-B for which the corresponding titles (TCT Nos. T-
116467 and T-116468), also in the name of respondent, were issued on
February 28, 1997.6

_______________
4 Id., at pp. 16-17.
5 Id., at pp. 18-22.
6 Id., at pp. 23-28.

309

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 309

Sabidong vs. Solas

On motion of Ernesto Pe Benito, Administrator of the Hodges Estate,

a writ of demolition was issued on March 3, 1998 by the probate court in
favor of respondent and against all adverse occupants of Lot 11.7
On June 14, 1999, this Court received the sworn letter-complaint
asserting that as court employee respondent cannot buy property in
litigation (consequently he is not a buyer in good faith), commit deception,
dishonesty, oppression and grave abuse of authority. Complainant
specifically alleged the following:

3. Complainant and his siblings, are possessors and occupants of

a parcel of land situated at Brgy. San Vicente, Jaro, Iloilo City, then
identified as Lot No. 1280-D-4-11, later consolidated and subdivided
and became known as Lot 11, then registered and titled in the name of
Charles Newton Hodges. The Sabidong family started occupying this
lot in 1948 and paid their monthly rentals until sometime in 1979 when
the Estate of Hodges stopped accepting rentals. x x x
4. Upon knowing sometime in 1987 that the property over which
their house is standing, was being offered for sale by the Estate, the
mother of complainant, TRINIDAD CLAVERIO SABIDONG (now
deceased), took interest in buying said property, Lot 11;
5. TRINIDAD CLAVERIO SABIDONG, was then an ordinary
housekeeper and a laundrywoman, who never received any formal
education, and did not even know how to read and write. When
Trinidad Claverio Sabidong, together with her children and the
complainant in this case, tried to negotiate with the Estate for the sale
of the subject property, they were informed that all papers for
transaction must pass through the respondent in this case, Nicolasito
Solas. This is unusual, so they made inquiries and they learned that,
Nicolasito Solas was then the Clerk of Court III, Branch 3, Municipal

_______________
 7 Id., at p p . 31-32.

310

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City and presently, the City Sheriff of Iloilo
City;
6. The respondent Nicolasito Solas, then Clerk of Court III,
MTCC, Iloilo City, has knowledge, by reason of his position that in
1983 Hodges Estate was ejecting occupants of its land. x x x Taking
advantage of this inside information that the land subject of an
ejectment case in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City, whom
respondent is a Clerk of Court III, the respondent surreptitiously
offered to buy the said lot in litigation. x x x
7. Complainant nor any member of his family did not know that
as early as 1984, the respondent had offered to purchase the subject
lot from the estate x x x. After receiving the notice of denial of his
offer to purchase, dated January 7, 1986, respondent made a second
offer to purchase the subject property the following day, January 8,
1986, knowing fully well that the subject property was being
occupied. x x x
8. Because of this denial, respondent met with the family of the
complainant and negotiated for the sale of the property and transfer of
the title in favor of the latter. Respondent made the complainant and
his family believed that he is the representative of the estate and that he
needed a downpayment right away. All the while, the Sabidong family
(who were carpenters, laundrywomen, a janitor, persons who belong
to the underprivileged) relied on the representations of the respondent
that he was authorized to facilitate the sale, with more reason that
respondent represented himself as the City Sheriff;
9. That between 1992-1993, a sister of the complainant who was
fortunate to have worked abroad, sent the amount of Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos to complainant’s mother, to be given to
respondent Nicolasito Solas. x x x After receiving the money,
respondent assured the Sabidong family that they will not be ejected
from the lot, he being the City Sheriff will take care of everything, and
taking advantage of the illiteracy of Trinidad Claverio Sabidong, he did
not issue any receipt;
10. True enough, they were not ejected instead it took the
respondent some time to see them again and

311

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 311

Sabidong vs. Solas
 demanded additional payment. In the meanwhile, the complainant
waited for the papers of the supposed sale and transfer of title, which
respondent had promised after receiving the downpayment of
P10,000.00;
11. That sometime again in 1995, respondent again received from
the mother of complainant the amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00)
Pesos, allegedly for the expenses of the documentation of sale and
transfer of title, and again respondent promised that the Sabidong
family will not be ejected;
12. To the prejudice and surprise of the complainant and his
family, respondent was able to secure an order for the approval of his
offer to purchase x x x in Special Proceedings No. 1672 x x x;
13. Worse, respondent moved for the issuance of a Writ of
Possession in his favor, which the probate court acted favorably x x x.
A writ of possession was issued on June 27, 1989 x x x;
14.  x x x respondent took advantage of the trust and confidence
which the Sabidong family has shown, considering that respondent
was an officer of the court and a City Sheriff at that. The complainant
and his family thought that respondent, being a City Sheriff, could help
them in the transfer of the title in their favor. Never had they ever
imagined that while respondent had been receiving from them hard-
earned monies purportedly for the sale of the subject property,
respondent was also exercising acts of ownership adverse to the
interest of the complainant and his family;
15. Being an officer of the court and supposed to be an
embodiment of fairness and justice, respondent acted with malice,
with grave abuse of confidence and deceit when he represented that he
can facilitate the sale and titling of the subject property in favor of the
complainant and his family;
16. That when several thousands of pesos were given to the
respondent as payment for the same and incidental expenses relative
thereto, he was able to cause the transfer of the title in his favor.
x x x;

312

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

17. After the death of Trinidad Claverio Sabidong x x x the

respondent received from the complainant the amount of Five
Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos x x x When a receipt was demanded,
respondent refused to issue one, and instead promised and assured the
complainant that they will not be ejected;
xxxx
19. The complainant again, through his sister-in-law, Socorro
Sabidong, delivered and gave to the respondent the amount of Three
Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos as expenses for the subdivision of the
subject lot. The respondent facilitated the subdivision and after the
same was approved, the complainant did not know that two (2) titles
were issued in the name of the respondent. x x x;
20. Meanwhile, respondent prepared a Contract to Sell, for the
complainant and his neighbor Norberto Saplagio to affix their
signatures, pursuant to their previous agreement for the buyers to avail
of a housing loan with the Home Development Mutual Fund (PAG-
IBIG). Complainant attended the seminar of the HDMF for seven (7)
times, in his desire to consummate the sale. However, when the
complainant affixed his signature in the contract, he was surprised that
the owner of the subject property was the respondent. When
complainant raised a question about this, respondent assured
complainant that everything was alright and that sooner complainant
will be the owner of the property. Complainant and his family, all these
years, had believed and continued to believe that the owner was the
estate of Hodges and that respondent was only the representative of
the estate;
21. The Contract to Sell, appeared to have been notarized on June
3, 1996, however, no copy thereof was given to the complainant by
the respondent. Respondent then, took the papers and documents
required by the HDMF to be completed, from the complainant
allegedly for the purpose of personally filing the same with the HDMF.
Complainant freely and voluntarily delivered all pertinent documents to
the respondent, thinking that respondent was helping in the fast and
easy release of the

313

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 313

Sabidong vs. Solas

loan. While the said documents were in the possession of the

respondent, he never made any transaction with the HDMF, worse,
when complainant tried to secure a copy of the Contract to Sell, the
copy given was not signed by the Notary Public, x x x;
22. The complainant [was] shocked to learn that respondent had
canceled the sale and that respondent refused to return the documents
required by the HDMF. Respondent claimed that as Sheriff, he can
cause the demolition of the house of the complainant and of his family.
Respondent threatened the complainant and he is capable of pursuing a
demolition order and serve the same with the assistance of the military.
x x x;
23. After learning of the demolition [order], complainant
attempted to settle the matter with the respondent, however, the same
proved futile as respondent boasted that the property would now cost
at Four Thousand Five Hundred (P4,500.00) Pesos;
24. The threats of demolition is imminent. Clearly, complainant
and his family were duped by the respondent and are helpless victims
 of an officer of the court who took advantage of their good faith and
trust. Complainant later was informed that the subject property was
awarded to the respondent as his Sheriff’s Fees, considering that
respondent executed the decisions in ejectment cases filed by the
Hodges estate against the adverse occupants of its vast properties;
25. A civil case for the Annulment of Title of the respondent over
the subject property is pending before the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo, Branch 37 and a criminal complaint for Estafa is also pending
preliminary investigation before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Iloilo City, known as I.S. No. 1559-99, both filed [by] the complainant
against the respondent.8

_______________
8 Id., at pp. 2-8.

314

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

Acting on the complaint, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo

issued a 1st Indorsement9 dated July 8, 1999, requiring respondent to file
his comment on the Complaint dated May 29, 1999. On October 21,
1999, respondent submitted his Comment.10
In a Resolution11 dated July 19, 1999, Public Prosecutor Constantino
C. Tubilleja dismissed the Estafa charge against respondent for
insufficiency of evidence.
On November 29, 2000, Court Administrator Benipayo issued an
Evaluation and Recommendation12 finding respondent guilty of violating
Article 149113 of the Civil Code. Said rule prohibits the purchase by
certain court officers of property and rights in litigation within their
jurisdiction. Court Administrator Benipayo recommended that:

1. this administrative complaint be treated as an administrative

matter;

_______________
9 Id., at p . 39.
10 Id., at p p . 40-47.
11 Id., at p p . 54-56-A.
12 Id., at p p . 57-61.
13 Art.  1491. The following p ersons cannot acquire by p urchase, even at a p ublic or
judicial auction, either in p erson or through the mediation of another:
xxxx
(5)  Justices, judges, p rosecuting attorney s, clerks of sup erior and inferior courts, and
other officers and emp loy ees connected with the administration of justice, the p rop erty and
rights in litigation or levied up on an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
territory they exercise their resp ective functions; this p rohibition includes the act of
acquiring by assignment and shall ap p ly to lawy ers, with resp ect to the p rop erty and rights
which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take p art by virtue of their
p rofession.
x x x x.

315

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 315

Sabidong vs. Solas

2. respondent Nicolasito S. Solas, Clerk of Court IV, OCC,

MTCC, Iloilo City be SUSPENDED for six (6) months, with warning
that a repetition of the same offense in the future will be dealt with
more severely;
3. inasmuch as there are factual issues regarding the delivery of
substantial amounts which complainant alleged and which defendant
denied, this issue should be investigated and the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City should be designated to hear the
evidence and to make a report and recommendation within sixty (60)
days from receipt.14

In a Resolution15 dated January 22, 2001, this Court adopted the

recommendation of the Court Administrator to treat the present
administrative action as a regular administrative matter and to designate
the Executive Judge of the RTC of Iloilo City to hear the evidence of the
parties. The Court, however, noted without action the Court
Administrator’s recommendation to suspend respondent for six months.
On March 13, 2001, Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño
forwarded the records of this case to Executive Judge Tito G. Gustilo of
the Iloilo City RTC.16 In a Resolution17 dated July 18, 2001, the Court
referred this case to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Iloilo City for
investigation, report and recommendation within 60 days from notice. By
Order18 dated August 30, 2001, Executive Judge Gustilo set the case for
reception of evidence.
On March 19, 2004, the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 37, dismissed the
case for annulment of title, damages and injunction against respondent for
lack of merit.19

_______________
14 Rollo, p. 61.
15 Id., at pp. 64-65.
16 Id., at p. 70.
17 Id., at p. 72.
18 Id., at p. 66.
19 Id., at pp. 83-91.

316
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sabidong vs. Solas

In a Resolution20 dated June 15, 2005, the Court resolved to reassign

the instant administrative case to Executive Judge Rene S. Hortillo for
investigation, report and recommendation within 60 days from notice. In a
Letter21 dated September 15, 2005, Executive Judge Hortillo informed
the Court that per the records, the parties have presented their testimonial
and documentary evidence before retired Executive Judge Tito G.
Gustilo.
On September 12, 2005, Executive Judge Hortillo required the
parties to file their respective memoranda within 60 days from notice,
upon submission of which the case shall be deemed submitted for
resolution.22
In his Memorandum,23 respondent maintained that his purchase of the
subject land is not covered by the prohibition in paragraph 5, Article
1491 of the Civil Code. He pointed out that he bought Lot 11-A a
decade after the MTCC of Iloilo, Branch 3, had ordered the ejectment of
Priscila Saplagio and Trinidad Sabidong from the subject lot. He insisted
that public trust was observed when complainant was accorded his right
of first refusal in the purchase of Lot 11-A, albeit the latter failed to avail
said right. Asserting that he is a buyer in good faith and for value,
respondent cited the dismissal of the cases for Estafa and annulment of
title and damages which complainant filed against him.
On September 10, 2007, respondent compulsorily retired from
service. Prior to this, he wrote then Senior Deputy Court Administrator
Zenaida N. Elepaño, requesting for the release of his retirement benefits
pending resolution of the administrative cases against him.24 In a
Memorandum25 dated Sep-

_______________
20 Id., at p. 100.
21 Id., at p. 97.
22 Id., at p. 99.
23 Id., at pp. 73-76.
24 Id., at p. 213.
25 Id., at pp. 210-212.

317

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 317

Sabidong vs. Solas

tember 24, 2007, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Elepaño made the
following recommendations:
a) The request of Nicolasito S. Solas, former Clerk of Court, M TCC, Iloilo City
 for partial release of his retirement benefits be GRANTED; and
b) Atty. Lilian Barribal Co, Chief, Financial M anagement Office, Office of the
Court Administrator be DIRECTED to (1) WITHHOLD the amount of Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) from the retirement benefits of
Nicolasito S. Solas to answer for any administrative liability that the Court
may find against him in A.M . No. P-01-1448 (Formerly Administrative
M atter OCA IPI No. 99-664-P); OCA IPI No. 99-659-P; OCA IPI No. 99-
670-P; and OCA IPI No. 99-753-P; and (2) RELEAS E the balance of his
retirement benefits.26

Eventually, the case was assigned to Judge Roger B. Patricio, the new
Executive Judge of the Iloilo City RTC for investigation, report and
recommendation.
On June 2, 2008, Judge Patricio submitted his final Report and
Recommendation27 finding respondent liable for grave misconduct and
dishonesty under A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC or the Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel. Based on the evidence presented, Judge Patricio
concluded that respondent misappropriated the money which he received
for the filing of complainant’s loan application. Such money could not
have been used for the partition of Lot No. 1280-D-4-11 since the same
was already subdivided into Lots 11-A and 11-B when respondent
presented the Contract to Sell to complainant. And despite respondent’s
promise to keep complainant and his family in peaceful possession of the
subject property, respondent caused the issuance of a writ of demolition
against them. Thus, Judge Patricio recommended the forfeiture of

_______________
26 Id., at pp. 211-212.
27 Id., at pp. 194-205.

318

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

respondent’s salary for six months to be deducted from his retirement

benefits.
In a Resolution28 dated September 29, 2008, the Court noted Judge
Patricio’s Investigation Report and referred the same to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation.
Findings and Recommendation of the OCA
In a Memorandum29 dated January 16, 2009, then Court
Administrator Jose P. Perez found respondent liable for serious and grave
misconduct and dishonesty and recommended the forfeiture of
respondent’s salary for six months, which shall be deducted from his
retirement benefits.
The Court Administrator held that by his unilateral acts of
extinguishing the contract to sell and forfeiting the amounts he received
from complainant and Saplagio without due notice, respondent failed to
act with justice and equity. He found respondent’s denial to be anchored
merely on the fact that he had not issued receipts which was belied by his
admission that he had asked money for the expenses of partitioning Lot
11 from complainant and Saplagio. Since their PAG-IBIG loan
applications did not materialize, complainant should have returned the
amounts given to him by complainant and Saplagio.
On February 11, 2009, the Court issued a Resolution30 requiring the
parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for decision
on the basis of the pleadings and records already filed with the Court.
However, the copy of the Resolution dated February 11, 2009 which
was sent to complainant was returned unserved with the postal carrier’s

_______________
28 Id., at p. 231.
29 Id., at pp. 232-247.
30 Id., at p. 248.

319

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 319

Sabidong vs. Solas

notation “RTS-Deceased.” Meanwhile, in a Compliance31 dated August

24, 2009, respondent expressed his willingness to submit the case for
decision and prayed for an early resolution of the case.
Our Ruling
Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers
such as clerks of court from acquiring property involved in litigation within
the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. Said provision reads:

Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,

even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another:
xxxx
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and
inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or
levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction
or territory they exercise their respective functions; this
prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply
to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the
object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

The rationale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy

disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved,
i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised
by these persons.32 “In so providing, the Code tends to prevent fraud, or
more precisely,

_______________
31 Id., at p. 253.
32 Ramos v. Atty. Ngaseo, 487 Phil. 40, 47; 445 SCRA 529, 535 (2004).

320

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

tends not to give occasion for fraud, which is what can and must be
done.”33
For the prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the property
must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the
property.34 Where the property is acquired after the termination of the
case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code
attaches.35
In the case at bar, when respondent purchased Lot 11-A on
November 21, 1994, the Decision in Civil Case No. 14706 which was
promulgated on May 31, 1983 had long become final. Be that as it may,
it can not be said that the property is no longer “in litigation” at that time
considering that it was part of the Hodges Estate then under settlement
proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 1672).
A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or
litigation over it in court, but also from the moment that it becomes
subject to the judicial action of the judge.36 A property forming part of
the estate under judicial settlement continues to be subject of litigation
until the probate court issues an order declaring the estate proceedings
closed and terminated. The rule is that as long as the order for the
distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate
proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated.37 The probate
court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the
payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs
entitled to receive the

_______________
33 Maharlik a Publishing Corporation v. Sps. Tagle, 226 Phil. 456, 465; 142
SCRA 553, 562 (1986).
34 Macariola v. Hon. Asuncion, etc., 199 Phil. 295, 308; 114 SCRA 77, 92 (1982).
35 Ramos v. Atty. Ngaseo, supra note 32, at p. 48; pp. 535-536.
36 Vda. de Gurrea v. Suplico, 522 Phil. 295, 308-309; 488 SCRA 332, 345 (2006),
citing Valencia v. Cabanting, A.C. Nos. 1302, 1391 and 1543, April 26, 1991, 196
SCRA 302, 307.
37 Id., at p. 309, citing Portugal v. Portugal-Beltran, G.R. No. 155555, August
16, 2005, 467 SCRA 184, 197.

321

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 321

Sabidong vs. Solas

same.38 Since there is no evidence to show that Sp. Proc. No. 1672
in the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 27, had already been closed and terminated
at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale With Mortgage dated
November 21, 1994, Lot 11 is still deemed to be “in litigation” subject to
the operation of Article 1491 (5) of the Civil Code.
This notwithstanding, we hold that the sale of Lot 11 in favor of
respondent did not violate the rule on disqualification to purchase
property because Sp. Proc. No. 1672 was then pending before another
court (RTC) and not MTCC where he was Clerk of Court.
On the charges against the respondent, we find him liable for
dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by
a public officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must
be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling. The
misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of
judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of the public officer’s official duties
amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or
failure to discharge the duties of the office.39
Dishonesty is the “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in
principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.”40

_______________
38 Id., citing Guilas v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, et al.,
150 Phil. 138, 144-145; 43 SCRA 111, 115 (1972).
39 Office of the Court Administrator v. Musngi, A.M. No. P-00-3024, July 17,
2012, 676 SCRA 525, 530, citing Alenio v. Cunting, A.M. No. P-05-1975, July 26,
2007, 528 SCRA 159, 169.
40 Id.

322

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

In this case, respondent deceived complainant’s family who were led

to believe that he is the legal representative of the Hodges Estate, or at
least possessed of such power to intercede for overstaying occupants of
the estate’s properties like complainant. Boasting of his position as a
court officer, a City Sheriff at that, complainant’s family completely relied
on his repeated assurance that they will not be ejected from the premises.
Upon learning that the lot they were occupying was for sale and that they
had to negotiate for it through respondent, complainant’s family readily
gave the amounts he demanded and, along with Saplagio, complied with
the requirements for a loan application with PAG-IBIG. All the while and
unknown to complainant’s family, respondent was actually working to
acquire Lot 11 for himself.
Thus, while respondent was negotiating with the Hodges Estate for the
sale of the property to him, he collected as down payment P5,000 from
complainant’s family in July 1986. Four months later, on November 18,
1986, the probate court approved respondent’s offer to purchase Lot
11. The latter received further down payment from complainant in the
amount of P10,000 between 1992 and 1993, or before the Deed of Sale
with Mortgage41 dated November 21, 1994 could be executed in
respondent’s favor.
Thereafter, respondent demanded P3,000 from complainant
supposedly for the subdivision of Lot 11 between the latter and the
Saplagios. Yet, it was not until respondent obtained title over said lot that
the same was subdivided into Lots 11-A and 11-B. The records42 of the
case show that the Subdivision Plan dated April 25, 1996, duly approved
by the Land Management Services (DENR) subdividing Lot 11 into
sublots 11-A and 11-B, was inscribed on February 28, 1997 — two
years after TCT No. T-107519 covering Lot 11 was issued in
respondent’s name on December 5, 1994.

_______________
41 Rollo, pp. 24-26.
42 Id., at p. 13.

323

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 323

Sabidong vs. Solas

Finally, in 1995, respondent received the amount of P2,000 to defray

the expenses for documentation and transfer of title in complainant’s
name. In the latter instance, while it may be argued that respondent
already had the capacity to sell the subject property, the sum of all the
circumstances belie an honest intention on his part to convey Lot 11-A to
complainant. We note the inscription in TCT No. T-1183643 in the name
of C.N. Hodges that respondent executed a Request dated February 19,
1997 “for the issuance of separate titles in the name of the registered
owner.”44 Soon after, TCT No. T-11646745 covering Lot 11-A and
TCT No. T-11646846 covering Lot 11-B were issued in the name of
respondent on February 28, 1997 — only eight months after he executed

the Contract to Sell47 in favor of complainant on June 3, 1996.

the Contract to Sell47 in favor of complainant on June 3, 1996.
Respondent’s bare denials were correctly disregarded by the Court
Administrator in the light of his own admission that he indeed asked
money from both complainant and Saplagio. The evidence on record
clearly established that by misrepresenting himself as the estate’s
representative and as a court officer having the power to protect
complainant’s family from eviction, respondent was able to collect sums
totaling P20,000 from complainant’s family. Even after the latter realized
they were duped since respondent was already the owner of Lot 11, they
still offered to buy the property from him. Respondent, however, changed
his mind and no longer wanted to sell the property after nothing happened
to the loan applications of complainant and Saplagio. This subsequent
unilateral cancellation by respondent of the contract to sell with
complainant may have been an afterthought, and plainly unjustified, based
merely on his own assumption that complainant could not make full
payment. But it did not negate

_______________
43 Id., at pp. 12-13.
44 Id., at p. 13.
45 Id., at p. 27.
46 Id., at p. 28.
47 Id., at pp. 29-30.

324

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

the deception and fraudulent acts perpetrated against complainant’s

family who were forced into submission by the constant threat of eviction.
Such acts constitute grave misconduct for which respondent should be
held answerable.
In Re: Complaint Filed by Paz De Vera Lazaro Against Edna
Magallanes, Court Stenographer III, RTC Br. 28 and Bonifacio G.
Magallanes, Process Server, RTC Br. 30, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya,48 the Court stressed that to preserve decency within the
judiciary, court personnel must comply with just contractual obligations,
act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards. In that case, we said that
court employees are expected to be paragons of uprightness, fairness and
honesty not only in their official conduct but also in their personal
dealings, including business and commercial transactions to avoid
becoming the court’s albatross of infamy.49
More importantly, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 671350 or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees mandates that public officials and employees shall remain true
to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and
shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the
underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and
shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.

_______________
48 A.M. No. P-11-3003 (Formerly A.M. I.P.I. No. 08-2970-P), April 25, 2012, 671
SCRA 1.
49 Id., at p. 5.
50 A N A CT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT A ND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR
PUBLIC OFFICIALS A ND EMP LOYEES, TO UP HOLD THE TIME -HONORED PRINCIP LE OF
PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES A ND REWARDS FOR
EXEMP LARY SERVICE , ENUMERATING PROHIBITED A CTS A ND TRANSACTIONS A ND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF A ND FOR OTHER PURP OSES.

325

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 325

Sabidong vs. Solas

Under Section 52,51 Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and grave misconduct are classified
as grave offenses with the corresponding penalty of dismissal for the first
offense. Section 58(a) states that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with
it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the
perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.
Section 53 further provides that mitigating circumstances attendant to
the commission of the offense should be considered in the determination
of the penalty to be imposed on the erring government employee.
However, no such mitigating circumstance had been shown. On the
contrary, respondent had been previously held administratively liable for
irregularities in the performance of his duties as Clerk of Court. In A.M.
No. P-01-1484,52 this Court imposed on respondent a fine of P5,000
for acting imprudently in notarizing documents and administering oath on
matters alien to his official duties. And in A.M. Nos. P-08-2567
(formerly OCA IPI No. 99-670-P) and P-08-2568 (formerly OCA IPI
No. 99-753-P),53 respondent was found liable for simple misconduct
and ordered to pay a fine

_______________
51 Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service reads:
Section 52. Classification of Offenses.—Administrative offenses with
corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on
their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
1. Dishonesty – 1st Offense – Dismissal
 xxxx
3. Grave Misconduct – 1st Offense – Dismissal
xxxx
52 Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas, 413 Phil. 558, 561 & 563; 361 SCRA 240, 243
(2001).
53 Leyrit v. Solas, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 668, 684.

326

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabidong vs. Solas

equivalent to his three (3) months salary to be deducted from his

retirement benefits.
Since respondent had compulsorily retired from service on September
10, 2007, for this additional administrative case he should be fined in an
amount equivalent to his salary for six months which shall likewise be
deducted from his retirement benefits.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Nicolasito S. Solas,
retired Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City,
LIABLE FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND DISHONESTY.
Respondent is FINED in an amount equivalent to his salary for six (6)
months to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion,

Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and
Leonen, JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., On official leave.
Perez, J., No part.

Respondent Nicolasito S. Solas meted with fine equivalent to his

six (6) months salary for grave misconduct and dishonesty.

Notes.―Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on

Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grants the disciplining authority
the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the
proper penalty. (Falsification of Daily Time Records of Ma. Emcisa
A. Benedictos, Administrative Officer I, Regional Trial Court,
Malolos City, Bulacan, 659 SCRA 403 [2011])
Mitigating circumstances such as length of service in the Judiciary,
acknowledgment of infractions and feeling of re-

327

VOL. 699, JUNE 25, 2013 327

Sabidong vs. Solas
 morse, and family circumstances, among other things, merited the leniency
of the Court; The mitigating circumstances remain to be the exception, the
general rule being the full imposition of the accessory penalties of
forfeiture of retirement benefits and the perpetual disqualification for
reemployment in the government service. (Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Acedo, 680 SCRA 354 [2012])

――o0o――

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.