Court Administrator v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Court Administrator charged Danilo G. Reyes, Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, with Serious Misconduct for failing to comply with a court order to set an auction sale of properties levied from Romeo B. Castillo, defendant in a civil case. Reyes released the levied properties to Castillo, stating he believed he had over-levied and that the plaintiff's counsel indicated the Toyota Tamaraw was sufficient to satisfy the judgment. He also cited the plaintiff's counsel's alleged promise to pay storage fees, which was not fulfilled, and the lack of a bodega for the Sheriff's Office. Procedural History: The Acting Executive Judge, Rizalina Bonifacio Vera, investigated the incident and found no evidence to sustain the administrative charge. She noted that the properties were already released to the defendant before the order to set the auction sale could be complied with. Judge Vera also considered the respondent's contention that the release was based on advice from the plaintiff's counsel, who did not refute the claim, and the plaintiff's subsequent execution of an affidavit of desistance. The Investigator recommended dismissal. The Petition: The Court Administrator charged respondent Reyes with Serious Misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Danilo G. Reyes committed Serious Misconduct by failing to comply with the court's order to set an auction sale and by releasing the levied properties without court permission. Whether the respondent is entitled to back salaries during his suspension.
Ruling
The Court found that while respondent Danilo G. Reyes acted improperly in releasing the properties without court permission, his actuation did not constitute serious misconduct as he did not appear to have acted in bad faith. The Court warned Reyes to be more prudent in the discharge of his duties. The Court also authorized the payment of his back salaries during the period of his suspension.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Serious Misconduct: The Court acknowledged that respondent Danilo G. Reyes acted improperly in releasing the levied properties to the defendant without seeking permission from the court. However, the Court found that this actuation, by itself, could not possibly constitute serious misconduct. This conclusion was based on the finding that Reyes appeared to have done the same not in bad faith, and no undue injury was caused to the plaintiff, nor was any unwarranted benefit or advantage given to the defendant. The Court considered the Investigator's report and recommendation, which found no evidence to sustain the charge, as the properties were already released before the order to set the auction sale could be complied with. The Court also noted that the plaintiff's counsel did not refute the respondent's claim that the release was based on advice from said counsel, and that the plaintiff later executed an affidavit of desistance. Despite the leniency of the Investigator's report, the Court deemed it necessary to issue a warning. On the Issue of Back Salaries: The Court authorized the payment of respondent's back salaries from the time he was suspended pendente lite by the Sandiganbayan up to and during the pendency of the administrative case. This was based on the fact that he was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan, which had ordered his suspension.
Main Doctrine
While a deputy sheriff's improper release of levied properties without court permission may not constitute serious misconduct if done without bad faith, it warrants a warning to exercise greater prudence in discharging duties.