Gomez and Guidote v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Johnny Gomez and Mar Guidote, representing Sabino S. Ramos, filed a complaint against Rodolfo A. Concepcion, Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Cabanatuan City. The complaint stemmed from a vehicular accident on March 10, 1996, where Sabino Ramos's jeep was damaged and its passengers injured by a passenger jeepney. The offending jeepney was under the custody of respondent Sheriff Concepcion. Respondent Sheriff averred that the jeepney was carnapped in front of his residence on the same day and that he had reported the incident to the Philippine National Police. Procedural History: The case was referred to Executive Judge Federico B. Fajardo, Jr., for investigation. The Investigating Judge noted the complainant's repeated failure to appear at scheduled hearings, despite notification. A relative of the complainant informed the court that the complainant was indisposed due to a foot cast. The complainant failed to submit a medical certificate as directed. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal, observing that the sworn statements did not mention any personal gain by the respondent. The Court referred the report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation. The OCA recommended a penalty of two months suspension without pay and a warning. The Petition: The core of the complaint was the alleged failure of the respondent Sheriff to properly secure a property under custodia legis, leading to its loss.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Rodolfo A. Concepcion was remiss in the performance of his official duty regarding the safekeeping of the passenger jeepney under his custody. Whether the complainant's lack of interest to prosecute warrants the dismissal of the administrative case.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Sheriff Rodolfo A. Concepcion guilty of dereliction of duty and suspended him for two (2) months without pay, with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court affirmed the findings of the OCA that respondent Sheriff was remiss in his duty. It was an undisputed fact that the passenger jeepney, which was under the custody of the law, was parked in front of the respondent's residence. The Court found no valid explanation for this action, as it exposed the vehicle to undesirable elements and made it an "easy prey" for thieves and carnappers. Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court mandates that an officer who takes property must keep it in a secure place and be responsible for it. The respondent breached this duty by failing to deposit the vehicle in the premises of the court or another secure location. The Court emphasized that sheriffs are bound to discharge their duties with prudence, caution, and attention, and that their conduct should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as agents of the law and the courts. On Issue 2: The Court held that proceedings in administrative cases against public officers should not depend on the whims and caprices of complainants, who are considered mere witnesses. Once the Court takes cognizance of an administrative case, a complaint cannot be withdrawn solely on the complainant's "say-so." The apparent lack of interest of the complainant in pursuing the matter was not sufficient to warrant dismissal, as the records sufficiently showed the respondent's culpability. The Court reiterated that sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and that high standards are expected of them. The respondent failed to offer any explanation for parking the vehicle in front of his residence instead of a secure place, thus clearly demonstrating his dereliction of duty.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff is remiss in the performance of his official duty and responsibility when a property under custodia legis is lost due to his failure to keep it in a secure place, thereby making him answerable for the consequences of his lapses.