2. PALERO-TAN vs. URDANETA, A.M.

P-07-2399 (2008)

DOCTRINE:

When a person who finds a thing that has been lost or mislaid by the owner takes the thing into his hands, he
acquires physical custody only and does not become vested with legal possession. In assuming such custody, the
finder is charged with the obligation of restoring the thing to its owner. It is thus respondent’s duty to report to his
superior or his officemates that he found something.

FACTS:

Complainant claimed that it has been her practice to keep her and her sister’s pieces of jewelry in the locked
drawer of her table at her RTC office because she fears that they might be lost at the boarding house she is
renting.

However, on 8 July 2005, she discovered that her ring and bracelet worth P15,000.00 were missing. Complainant
remembered that her younger sister went to the RTC to ask for her necklace. Complainant took out from her table
drawer a transparent plastic sachet which contained her ring and bracelet, and her sister’s necklace, and after
handing over to her sister the necklace, she returned the plastic sachet, still containing the bracelet and ring, to
her table drawer. She maintained that the only person who was present and saw her take out the jewelry from her
table drawer was respondent, whose table is adjacent to hers.

According to complainant, when she found out that her ring and bracelet were missing, she informed her
officemates about it, but nobody claimed to have seen the missing jewelry. Later, an officemate, Anecito D. Altone,
confided to her that he heard from his landlady, Anastacia R. Nable, that respondent and his wife, Milagros, had a
quarrel because the latter discovered a ring and a bracelet in respondent’s coin purse.

Milagros suspected that respondent bought the jewelry for his mistress. Complainant approached the RTC presiding
judge, Judge Absalon U. Fulache, and relayed to him the information she gathered. Judge Fulache advised her to
invite Nable and Milagros to his chambers so he could confirm the information.

Milagros admitted to Judge Fulache that she and respondent had a fight because she found a ring and bracelet
inside respondent’s coin purse which she believed he would give to his mistress. Complainant was certain that the
jewels Milagros saw in respondent’s purse were hers based on Milagros’s description of the said ring and bracelet.
In a separate meeting with Judge Fulache, respondent confessed that he found complainant’s jewels in the court’s
premises, but he could no longer return them because he already threw them away.

The administrative report found respondent liable for Conduct Unbecoming a Court Personnel. It was found
respondent’s actions inconsistent with his claim that he had no intention to take the jewelry for his personal gain.
For reasons only known to him, respondent never bothered to inform his officemates about the jewelry placed in a
plastic sachet that he allegedly found under his table "at the side nearest to the adjacent table of the complainant."

It was only on 2 or 3 August 2005, or more than a month after respondent found the jewelry, when he
acknowledged before Judge Fulache that he possessed the jewelry. Even when the complainant was announcing to
the rest of the office staff the loss of her jewelry, respondent pretended to hear nothing. Were it not for the
scandal brought about by his wife’s discovery of the missing jewelry, respondent would not have admitted to Judge
Fulache that he had found the same. It was held that all of respondent’s acts indicate that he had no intention to
return the pieces of jewelry to complainant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be administratively held liable for taking the jewelry for personal gain - YES.

RATIO:
When a person who finds a thing that has been lost or mislaid by the owner takes the thing into his hands, he
acquires physical custody only and does not become vested with legal possession. In assuming such custody, the
finder is charged with the obligation of restoring the thing to its owner. It is thus respondent’s duty to report to his
superior or his officemates that he found something. The Civil Code, in Article 719, explicitly requires the finder of
a lost property to report it to the proper authorities, thus:

Article 719. Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return it to its previous possessor. If the latter is
unknown, the finder shall immediately deposit it with the mayor of the city or municipality where the finding has
taken place.

The finding shall be publicly announced by the mayor for two consecutive weeks in the way he deems best.

If the movables cannot be kept without deterioration, or without the expenses which considerably diminish its
value, it shall be sold at public auction eight days after the publication.

Six months from the publication having elapsed without the owner having appeared, the thing found, or its value,
shall be awarded to the finder. The finder and the owner shall be obliged, as the case may be, to reimburse the
expenses.

Contrary to respondent’s claim, this Court is convinced that respondent had the intention to appropriate the jewelry
to himself had these not been discovered by his wife. His claim that the ring and bracelet were worthless "fancy"
jewelry is immaterial because the basis for his liability is his act of taking something which does not belong to him.

By admittedly finding complainant’s ring and bracelet without returning them to the rightful owner, respondent
blatantly degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the people for the court and its
personnel. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, morality and honesty. Like any other
public servant, respondent must exhibit the highest sense of trustworthiness and rectitude not only in the
performance of his official duties but also in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the
court’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice. It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of
justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work there, from the judge to the
lowest employee.