Abalde v. Roque, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Dimas Abalde was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. T-674, which resulted in a favorable judgment for him, awarding P110,000.00 in damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. A writ of execution was issued, and the respondent sheriff, Antonio Roque, Jr., proceeded to collect the judgment award from the Land Bank. The respondent sheriff handed over P90,000.00 to the complainant, stating the balance would be remitted later. In February 2000, the respondent presented a "Report of Sheriff’s Expenses" totaling P16,260.00, without supporting receipts. Procedural History: Complainant filed an Affidavit-Complaint for grave misconduct against the respondent sheriff. The case was referred to the Executive Judge for investigation. During the hearings, the complainant manifested a lack of interest in pursuing the charges, while the respondent maintained his actions were legal, admitting he did not turn over P3,740.00 of the unaccounted funds. The Executive Judge recommended dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent failed to comply with Rule 141, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, recommending a one-month suspension. The Supreme Court agreed with the finding of guilt but modified the penalty. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution of the administrative complaint against the respondent sheriff for grave misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent sheriff Antonio Roque, Jr. is guilty of grave misconduct for failing to comply with the Rules of Court regarding sheriff's expenses. Whether the desistance of the complainant bars disciplinary action against the respondent sheriff.
Ruling
Respondent Antonio Roque, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, is found GUILTY of grave misconduct. He is SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to immediately TURN OVER to complainant Dimas Abalde the amount of P3,740.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave misconduct: The Court found the respondent sheriff guilty of grave misconduct. Rule 141, Section 9 of the Rules of Court clearly outlines the procedure for sheriff's expenses: estimation, court approval, deposit with the Clerk of Court, disbursement by the Clerk of Court to the sheriff, and liquidation by the sheriff. The respondent failed to follow these steps, as he did not estimate expenses beforehand, did not secure court approval, and appeared to have taken custody of the funds himself rather than through the Clerk of Court. Furthermore, he admitted to failing to turn over P3,740.00, which constitutes an unlawful exaction and a violation of the rules and jurisprudence. Such actions give rise to the suspicion of misappropriation and breach the high standards expected of sheriffs as agents of the law. On the issue of desistance of the complainant: The Court held that the desistance of the complainant is of no moment and does not bar disciplinary sanction. Administrative proceedings are not dependent on the complainant's whims; the aggrieved party is the court system itself, which requires personnel to maintain faith and confidence. The issue is whether the employee breached the norms and standards of the judiciary, not whether the complainant has a cause of action. To rule otherwise would subvert the fair and prompt administration of justice and undermine the discipline of court personnel. Therefore, the Court has a duty to root out misconduct regardless of the parties' withdrawal of complaints.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who fails to comply with the prescribed procedure for the payment of sheriff's expenses, including obtaining court approval for estimated expenses and proper disbursement and liquidation thereof, is liable for grave misconduct. The desistance of the complainant does not bar disciplinary action against erring court personnel.