Custodio v. Fulinara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant George C. Custodio charged Apolonio F. Fulinara, Deputy Provincial Sheriff, with dishonesty, neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges stemmed from Fulinara's alleged failure to execute a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 86 for the collection of P500.00, and for accepting P500.00 from Custodio for the publication of a public auction of Cirilo Llagas's property, which publication never materialized, and the money was not returned. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales for investigation. The Investigating Judge, Ramon Mabutas, Jr., conducted the investigation and submitted a report with findings and recommendations. The respondent sheriff consistently failed to appear in the scheduled hearings despite notices. The Petition: The complainant sought the dismissal of the respondent sheriff from service due to the alleged misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff is guilty of dishonesty, neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Whether the respondent's consistent failure to appear in the investigation proceedings constitutes a virtual admission of the charges.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff guilty of neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct, and ordered his dismissal from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of dishonesty, neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court found the respondent guilty. The complainant testified that the respondent failed to execute a writ of execution for a P500.00 collection case and accepted P500.00 for a public auction publication that never occurred, without returning the money. The respondent's failure to substantiate his defenses in his answer, particularly his claim that the complainant refused to receive the money and that the defendant was insolvent, was further undermined by his consistent absence during the investigation. The Investigating Judge noted that the respondent had been absent without leave since January 1978. The Court emphasized that sheriffs are officers of the court and their duties must be discharged with utmost dispatch to avoid derailing the administration of justice. The respondent's actions were deemed highly prejudicial to the interest of the service and vitiated the integrity of the court personnel and the court itself. On the issue of the respondent's failure to appear in the investigation: The Court held that the respondent's consistent and unexplained failure to appear in the scheduled hearings, despite being given multiple opportunities, constituted a virtual admission of the charges. The investigation proceeded ex parte because of the respondent's non-appearance. The Court reasoned that if the respondent were innocent, he would have every inducement to deny, contradict, or explain the accusations. His failure to present evidence, after promising to do so, created a presumption that such evidence would be unfavorable to his contention. This failure to refute the accuser's assertions created an inference that the charges were true.
Main Doctrine
A Deputy Provincial Sheriff found guilty of dishonesty, neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, particularly for failing to execute a writ of execution, failing to return money collected for a public auction that did not materialize, and consistently failing to appear in investigation proceedings, is ordered dismissed from service.