[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2339-P. August 16, 2006]
CARLOTA M. DAVID-DAGDAG v. ALLEN FRANCISCO SICAT, SHERIFF III, MTCC-OCC, ANGELES CITY
First Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated AUG. 16, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2339-P (Carlota
M. David-Dagdag v. Allen Francisco Sicat, Sheriff
III, MTCC-OCC, Angeles City)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator,
to wit:
In a COMPLAINT dated November 18, 2005, complainant Carlota M.
David-Dagdag alleged that respondent Sheriff Allen Francisco Sicat obtained from her a loan in the amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) which was given in
Manager's Check purchased from the Bank of the Philippine Islands-Family Bank
(BPI-Family), Angeles City Branch.
Complainant alleged that respondent sheriff informed her that the amount
loaned shall be used in the hauling of filling materials to the PNCC for the
widening and expansion of roads, expenses for quarry operations. Subsequently, respondent allegedly persuaded
complainant to join him in that venture though the loan agreement shall
subsists. Respondent further assured
complainant a minimum of 50 truckloads of haul a day, or a profit of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) daily, payable on weekly
basis.
Relying on the assurances of respondent sheriff, complainant extended
the latter a loan in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). Corollarily,
respondent prepared a document that complainant thought was a promissory note. However, a "partnership contract"
was instead executed which complainant nonetheless signed relying on
respondent's trustworthiness, honesty and integrity.
However, respondent never paid complainant even a single centavo by
way of profit or interest which resulted in complainant's failure to pay the
loan obligation and the eventual foreclosure of complainant's house.
Upon pleas made on respondent, payments on a staggered basis were
made. The first and second payments were
made on 14 June 2004 in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and Twenty Thousand Pesos [P20,000.00], respectively,
at the Municipal Trial Court. Thereafter,
the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) was sent
at the complainant's house through an emissary; another Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
was paid personally by respondent and the most recent was in the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Thereafter,
despite repeated demands for him to pay the remaining balance of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), respondent failed to pay
his obligation.
By way of ANSWER dated February 8, 2006, respondent sheriff vehemently
denies each and every allegation against him. Respondent sheriff avers that he came to know
the complainant only when the latter was introduced to him by their common
friend. Respondent alleged that complainant
then was interested to venture in the on-going hauling projects relative to the
widening of North Luzon Expressway. It
is for this reason why they were introduced since respondent was engaged then, albeit
indirectly, into said hauling projects.
Subsequently, after having been informed of the projected income based
on the representation of BGR Enterprises, subcontractor of BSP Construction,
the latter being the contractor of the said project, complainant agreed to
invest the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). Thereafter, respondent sheriff alleged that
he and complainant entered into a PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT. (Annex "B" of the COMPLAINT). Because of this, BGR Enterprises, through its owner/proprietor
Arnel G. Rimando, contracted the partnership of complainant and respondent to
haul and deliver construction materials to the construction site.
However, respondent avers that the project and the expected income
from the said hauling project of their partnership did not materialize because
of many unexpected expenses incurred in the operation thereof and the delayed
payments made by BGR Enterprises. To
aggravate the situation further, the partnership has many uncollected deliveries
from BGR Enterprises, which remains unsettled up to the present.
EVALUATION:
A loan is a contract wherein a person who receives money is bound to
pay the creditor an equal amount of the same kind or quality. (Article 1953, Civil Code)
Respondent Sheriff Sicat received from
the complainant a Manager's Check in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) in virtue of a contract executed by the parties
denominated as PARTNERSHIP (Annex "B" of the COMPLAINT) for hauling of
filling materials to PNCC. In the said
partnership contract, it was stipulated that the complainant shall provide P200,000.00 for operation and payment of quarry and trucks after
deliveries of materials to the site and the former shall receive the amount of
[One Hundred Pesos] (P100.00) net profit per truckload.
The contract entered into was not a loan agreement but it is akin
to a Joint Venture Agreement to haul filling materials wherein the complainant
had to provide the capital. The contract
was written in simple and clear language where the intention of the parties was
clearly stated. The contract did not say
that after the hauling job is done, respondent shall return the P200,000.00 to the complainant.
The alleged partnership entered into by the complainant and respondent
was a valid contract for there was meeting of the minds, the subject matter was
hauling of filling materials and the consideration was for the complainant to
provide P200,000.00 for operation and payment of quarry
and trucks, and she will receive the amount of P100.00 per truckload delivered.
RECOMMENDATION:
Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court
is our recommendation that this case be DISMISSED for insufficiency of
evidence.
From the facts obtaining in this case, there arises an issue as
to whether the transaction between the complainant and respondent is a contract
of loan or a partnership. This issue is
best adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction. Pending resolution thereof, the liability of
the respondent can not be determined. Herein
administrative case is premature.
ACCORDINGLY, the
administrative complaint against Sheriff Allen Francisco Sicat
is DISMISSED.
SO
ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA
ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division