Pardo v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two consolidated cases were filed against Deputy Sheriff Antonio Velasco. In A.M. No. P-90-408, the complainant charged respondent with unbecoming conduct due to prolonged absence without leave, grave abuse of authority, extortion/bribery, and contempt of court. The charge stemmed from respondent's alleged unauthorized reporting to Branch 14 and the improper implementation of a writ of replevin in Civil Case No. 89-49342, where a motor vehicle was seized and immediately turned over to the plaintiff's counsel, Stephen Bastian, despite an order to hold it for five days. It was also alleged that respondent demanded and received P10,000.00 as a bribe. In A.M. No. P-90-453, Richard and Carmencita Houghton charged respondent with gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority related to the same Civil Case No. 89-49342. Procedural History: Respondent commented on the charges, denying them and providing explanations. He claimed the turnover of the seized property was covered by an undertaking from the plaintiff's counsel due to the lack of storage space in the sheriff's office, and that his criminal culpability for this act was dismissed by the Ombudsman. He also denied the bribery charge for lack of basis and explained his work attendance. The cases were referred for investigation. The Investigating Judge found the charge of prolonged absence without leave to be unsubstantiated due to documentary evidence of approved details. However, the Investigating Judge found that respondent abused his authority in implementing the writ of replevin by failing to comply with Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of Court and recommended suspension for one month without pay. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations. The charge of prolonged absence without leave was dismissed. The Court found respondent liable for abuse of authority in implementing the writ of replevin.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Antonio Velasco committed unbecoming conduct prejudicial to the service by reason of prolonged absence without leave. Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Antonio Velasco committed grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct in the implementation of the Writ of Replevin issued in Civil Case No. 89-49342. Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Antonio Velasco committed extortion or bribery.
Ruling
The charge of prolonged absence without leave is DISMISSED. Respondent Antonio Velasco is found liable for abuse of authority in implementing the Writ of Replevin issued in Civil Case No. 89-49342 and is imposed a FINE of P4,000.00, payable within thirty (30) days from notice, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of prolonged absence without leave: The Court found that documentary evidence, including daily time records and approved detail orders, showed that respondent had been reporting for work from January 1989 to June 1990 with the approval of the Presiding Judges. These documents negated the charge of prolonged absence without leave, leading to its dismissal. On the charge of grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct in the implementation of the Writ of Replevin: The Court agreed with the Investigating Judge that respondent abused his authority. The writ of replevin ordered the sheriff to keep the property for five days before delivery to the plaintiff, allowing the defendant an opportunity to object to the bond or file a counterbond. Respondent's immediate turnover of the seized properties to the plaintiff's counsel, despite this provision and the subsequent order for re-delivery, was deemed highly improper and a grave abuse of authority. The reasons provided by respondent, such as lack of storage space and the undertaking by counsel, were not considered acceptable justifications for failing to comply with the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that as an officer of the court, respondent has ministerial duties that must be performed faithfully to the letter, and every provision in the Rules of Court has a specific objective that must be respected. The fact that the order for re-delivery was not immediately complied with further demonstrated the impropriety of respondent's actions. On the charge of extortion or bribery: The charge of indirect bribery was abandoned by the complainant as the key witness, Stephen J.E. Bastian, had been deported and could no longer testify. Respondent also denied the charge for lack of sufficient basis, pointing out that the alleged reporting witness, Atty. Manuel Chico, entered his appearance long after the seizure, thus lacking personal knowledge of any alleged demand for bribe money. The Court did not make a definitive ruling on this charge due to its abandonment and the respondent's defense.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to strictly comply with the five-day period for the defendant to object to the bond or require the return of the property by filing a counterbond, by immediately turning over seized properties to the plaintiff's counsel, constitutes abuse of authority, even if done in good faith or with an undertaking for safekeeping.