Agcaoili v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Alfonso V. Agcaoili alleged that respondent Roumel M. Reyes, a Deputy Sheriff of Manila, levied on several pieces of machinery. During a hearing concerning a third-party claim, it was revealed that respondent had approached Atty. Agcaoili, counsel for the First National City Bank (Bank), and offered to release excess properties attached for a consideration. The Bank, as a second attaching creditor, had Writs of Attachment against the properties of Chemplex Phils., Inc. and Tommy P. S. Lim, but these could not be enforced due to inability to locate the properties. Atty. Agcaoili stated that respondent demanded P20,000.00 for the information, refusing a counter-proposal of reasonable compensation based on secured properties. Respondent denied demanding P20,000.00, claiming Atty. Agcaoili tried to induce him with a reward, which he refused. Respondent asserted he suggested a cash deposit with the court and denied threatening to release excess properties. Procedural History: The Presiding Judge of Branch VII, Court of First Instance of Manila, ordered Atty. Agcaoili to file a comment under oath regarding the imputation of malfeasance against respondent. Atty. Agcaoili submitted his affidavit, and respondent filed an unsworn answer. Hearings were conducted by Executive Judge Serafin Cuevas, who was later substituted by Executive Judge Jose C. Colayco for the investigation. Judge Colayco submitted a Report finding Atty. Agcaoili's version more credible and respondent's denials unconvincing. The Court Administrator concurred with these findings. The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on these reports. The Petition: The case originated from a complaint filed by Atty. Agcaoili against Deputy Sheriff Roumel M. Reyes for serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Roumel M. Reyes is guilty of serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office. Whether respondent's demand for P20,000.00 in exchange for information on levied properties constitutes a violation of the standards of integrity required of judicial officers.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ordered the immediate dismissal of respondent Roumel Reyes, Deputy Sheriff of Manila, with forfeiture of retirement privileges and prejudice to reemployment in any government office or agency. The Court found respondent guilty of serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of serious malfeasance and gross misconduct: The Court found the version of Atty. Agcaoili more credible than that of the respondent. Atty. Agcaoili, as a reputable member of the bar, would not likely accuse an officer of the court with serious misconduct unless sure of it, and his testimony under cross-examination precluded the possibility of mistake. The persistent refusal of the respondent to reveal the location of the properties further supported Atty. Agcaoili's testimony. If respondent were willing to cooperate as he alleged, he would have disclosed the properties' location. The inconsistency between his conduct and his declaration demonstrated the insincerity of his denial. The Court emphasized that the respondent's action in demanding what constituted an informer's fee violated the rigid standards of integrity required of him by law and undermined public faith in the administration of justice. The Court Administrator concurred with the Investigating Executive Judge's findings that respondent was guilty of serious malfeasance and gross misconduct. On the violation of integrity standards: The Court held that respondent, in demanding P20,000.00 in return for information regarding the location of levied properties, was recreant to the rigid standards of integrity required of all functionaries in the judicial branch. Public office is a public trust, and respondent utilized his office more for personal gain and selfish ends, thereby violating this constitutional precept. Such reprehensible acts erode the people's faith in the administration of justice and demonstrate his unfitness to continue in office. The Court cited Valencia v. Pamisaran in support of the principle that demanding an informer's fee violates the required standards of integrity.
Main Doctrine
A Deputy Sheriff who demands a sum of money in return for information regarding the location of levied properties is guilty of serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office, violating the rigid standards of integrity required of judicial officers and the constitutional precept that public office is a public trust.