Manzano v. Saur
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Antonio B. Manzano filed a verified complaint against Mario P. Saur, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Cotabato City, for malversation and malfeasance. Complainant alleged that on June 16, 1972, he presented a Writ of Execution to Saur to collect P26,000.00 from Pablo Cua. An arrangement was made for Cua to pay P1,000.00 monthly to Saur, who would remit it to the complainant. From June to September 1972, Saur collected and remitted the installments. From September 1972 to April 1976, Saur failed to remit, only sending a letter on August 14, 1973, stating he was "relieved of the problem of collecting from Cua" and discouraging the complainant from going to Cotabato City due to risk. On April 5, 1976, the complainant, armed with an Alias Writ of Execution, discovered that Saur had been collecting P300.00 monthly from Cua since April 15, 1975, up to March 1976, totaling P3,300.00, with receipts signed by Saur. When confronted, Saur admitted misappropriating the P3,300.00 and promised to remit it within sixty days, by June 5, 1976. He failed to comply. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to respondent Saur for comment. Saur admitted collecting and remitting P4,000.00, but claimed the peace and order situation in Cotabato City became unstable, causing Cua to stop paying. He also alleged that the plaintiff complained about not receiving any amount. Saur claimed the plaintiff's counsel offered a bonus for collecting P10,000.00, and they collected P11,000.00, which counsel deemed sufficient for amicable settlement. Saur stated that when counsel discovered the P3,300.00 excess collection, counsel demanded it, which Saur claimed was part of the collection, not sheriff's fees. Saur expressed willingness to refund the amount, even through salary deduction. The Petition: The complainant prayed for Saur's investigation and, if found guilty, removal from service.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff Mario P. Saur is guilty of malversation and malfeasance in office. Whether respondent Saur's actions constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal from the service.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Deputy Provincial Sheriff Mario P. Saur guilty of serious misconduct and malfeasance in office. The Court ordered his DISMISSAL from service, with prejudice to reemployment and without prejudice to any criminal action that may be filed against him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of malversation and malfeasance: The Court found the charge of malversation and malfeasance sufficiently established based on the respondent's admissions. Respondent Saur admitted collecting the sum of P3,300.00 from the defendant Cua by virtue of the writ of execution. Instead of delivering the proceeds to the complainant, he misappropriated the same for his own use and benefit. His offer to repay the amount and his willingness to accept salary deductions further corroborated the misappropriation. The Court noted that the money collected was in legis custodia, making its misappropriation by a sheriff a clear case of malversation. The admissions made by the respondent in his comment dispensed with the need for further investigation, as the facts on record were sufficient to resolve the complaint. On the issue of dismissal from service: The Court agreed with the complainant's prayer for dismissal. Respondent Saur's failure to turn over the P3,300.00, which he agreed and undertook to collect for the complainant, constituted a serious breach of faith reposed in him as an officer of the court. This conduct was deemed gross misconduct in office. The Court cited the case of Abdulwahid vs. Reyes, where a deputy sheriff was dismissed for misappropriating collected funds. Therefore, respondent Saur's actions warranted the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service.
Main Doctrine
A deputy sheriff who misappropriates funds collected by virtue of a writ of execution is guilty of serious misconduct and malfeasance in office, warranting dismissal from the service.