FIRST DIVISION
EMMA A. ALBELLO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-01-1476
January 16, 2003 -versus-
JOSE O. GALVEZ,
SHERIFF
III,MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES,BRANCH 2, LEGAZPI
CITY,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
Before the Court
is a verified complaint filed by Emma Albello against Sheriff Jose
Galvez
of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, of Legazpi City
charging
him with misrepresentation and dishonesty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complaint originated
from Civil Case No. 3941, entitled "Bienvinida Atun-Banzuela, et al.
vs.
Rommel Albello," for forcible entry. The case involved a parcel of land
situated in the municipality of Albay, Legazpi, covered by Transfer
Certificate
of Title No. 47499. On 23 October 1992, the trial court, Judge Raymund
Jacob presiding, rendered its decision in favor of the plaintiffs
Bienvinida
Atun-Banzuela, et al.; the court adjudged: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs:
1. ordering the defendant Rommel Albello to discontinue constructing
his
house in the land in question and to vacate said premises;
2.
ordering
the defendant to pay plaintiffs reasonable rentals at the rate of
P50.00
a month from November 12, 1991 until he actually vacates the premises;
3.
ordering
the defendant to pay plaintiffs P1,500.00 for attorney’s fees and to
pay
the costs."[1]
Upon finality of
the decision, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court for
implementation
by respondent sheriff. Respondent, in his sheriff’s return, reported to
the court that defendant Albello had already vacated the premises. A
motion
for demolition was later filed by the plaintiffs reiterating their plea
that the defendant be directed to vacate the premises. This motion was
subsequently withdrawn when the parties agreed to instead await the
outcome
of Civil Case No. 8804, entitled "Wilfredo A. Albello, et al. vs.
Bienvinida
Atun-Banzuela," for quieting of title concerning the same property. The
trial court, in its order of 13 July 1994, confirmed thusly:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In today’s hearing of
the Motion for Demolition filed by plaintiffs, through counsel, the
parties
and counsels agreed that there should be two sets of padlocks and two
sets
of keys which would be used in padlocking the main door of the
residential
house in question. One padlock, together with its key, should be in the
possession of the Sheriff, while the other padlock, with its key,
(would
be) in possession of the plaintiffs. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The defendant is advised
by the court not to enter the premises until otherwise ordered. For
humanitarian
consideration and in the interest of justice, the plaintiffs are hereby
withdrawing their motion for demolition pending the outcome of the
quieting
of title case involving the same parties before the Regional Trial
Court.cralaw:red
Mr. Jose Galvez, Deputy
Sheriff, is hereby directed to repair to the premises in question and
cause
the padlocking of said main door and turn-over one padlock and its key
to the plaintiffs while the other padlock and its key should be
retained
by said sheriff.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 15 October 1999,
herein complainant, Emma Albello, wife of defendant Rommel Albello,
filed
a complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, asseverating
that
respondent sheriff demanded and received from complainant’s
mother-in-law
the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00). The money was
supposedly
paid to respondent sheriff with the latter’s assurance that he would
take
care of everything and open the padlocked property. The Office of the
Deputy
Ombudsman dismissed the letter-complaint and indorsed the records of
the
case to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon its receipt of
the records, the Office of the Court Administrator required respondent
to file his comment on the complaint. In his comment, respondent
admitted
having received the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) from
complainant’s
mother-in-law but claimed that it was for attorney’s fees intended for
Atty. Caesar Daep who could help complainant facilitate access to the
subject
property. Later, however, he returned the money after Atty. Daep had
refused
to accept the case. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the Court
Administrator, in its memorandum of 25 January 2001, recommended that
an
investigation be conducted in order to thresh out the factual issues of
the case. The Court, in its resolution of 05 March 2001, adopted the
recommendation
and referred the case to Executive Judge Raymund Jacob of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, of Legazpi City for investigation,
report
and recommendation. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Investigating Judge,
in his report of 24 August 2001, submitted his findings; he stated:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a careful perusal
and evaluation of the evidence adduced and the demeanors of the
witnesses,
the undersigned Executive Judge finds the complainant’s version more
credible
and deserves full consideration. The deportment and manner of
testimonies,
during the investigation, of the private complainant Emma Albello and
witness
Salve Albello, a 57-year old public elementary school teacher, were
natural,
frank, and sincere in answering questions. There is no showing that
they
had ill reasons for testifying against respondent Jose O. Galvez, who
admitted
in his letter-complaint (Exh. G, Rollo, p. 14) that he does not know
personally
complainant Emma Albello. It has repeatedly been held that the
testimonies
of witnesses not actuated by improper motive is entitled to full faith
and credit (People vs. Patag, 144 SCRA 429; People vs. Cruz, 191 SCRA
127;
People vs. Rabang, 187 SCRA 682; People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 96397,
Nov.
21, 1991). chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As shown by evidence,
a total amount of four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos was given to the
respondent,
broken as follows: P1,000.00 on July 1, 1999 supposedly as respondent’s
sheriff’s fee, handed personally to him by complainant’s mother-in-law,
Salve Albello; P1,000.00 given to respondent by Salve Albello on July
2,
1999 intended as partial payment for attorney’s fees; P1,000.00 given
to
respondent by Salve Albello on July 11, 1999 also as partial payment
for
attorney’s fees; and P1,000.00 given to respondent by complainant Emma
Albello on August 1, 1999 as last and full payment for attorney’s fees.
While complainant Emma Albello’s claim that respondent had demanded and
received personally from her P1,000.00 on August 1, 1999 was not
mentioned
in her letter-complaint (Exh. A, Rollo, p. 1), it came out in the
course
of the investigation and should be, as it is hereby, acted upon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The admission by respondent
having received the sum of the three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos from
complainant’s
mother-in-law, Salve Albello, has bolstered the complainant’s version.
Moreover, Atty. Caesar Daep’s letter (Exh. E, Rollo, p. 10), addressed
to respondent, refusing acceptance of said amount as retainer’s fee,
shows
that respondent, indeed, had with him the said amount. Respondent’s
assertion
that he had already returned said amount to Salve Albello on September
6, 1999 is, however, belied by the latter’s vigorous denial of receipt
thereof. Besides, respondent has not shown any receipt or memorandum of
some sort to support his claim. Between the words of respondent and
those
of Salve Albello, a 57-year old public elementary school teacher, the
undersigned
investigator gives full faith and credit to the latter.cralaw:red
x x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The act of respondent
in soliciting money from complainant and her mother-in-law is
incompatible
with the position and function of the respondent as deputy sheriff of
the
court. His demand for and receipt of moneys which he was not authorized
to require from complainant and her mother-in-law, supposedly to
expedite
the opening of the padlocked house, constituted dishonesty and gross
misconduct,
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and acts unbecoming of
a court employee.cralaw:red
Public service requires
the utmost integrity and the strictest discipline in the conduct of
government
employees. This is especially true of sheriffs, like herein respondent.
As repeatedly held by the Supreme Court, in the case of public servants
who are in the judiciary, their conduct and behavior, from the
presiding
judge to the lowliest clerk, must not only be characterized by
propriety
and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicionchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Lacuata vs. Bautista,
235 SCRA 290, citing Mirano vs. Saavedra, 225 SCRA 77.)[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Judge Jacob, in his
report, took into consideration the fact that respondent sheriff had
been
in the judiciary for thirty (30) years; accordingly, he recommended
that
he be suspended for one (1) year, without pay, with a warning that a
repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the Court
Administrator, in its memorandum of 08 March 2002, adopted the findings
and recommendation of Executive Judge Jacob.cralaw:red
Indeed, the assailed
conduct of respondent sheriff cannot be countenanced. He has admitted
having
received the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) from
complainant.
The Court is inclined to give more credence to the claim of complainant
that the sum was demanded by respondent sheriff to expedite the opening
of the padlocked house than his claim that the amount was intended to
help
complainant obtain the legal services of Atty. Caesar Daep. Even if
respondent's
claim were true, it would have been an inexcusable act of imprudence on
his part to intercede in such manner for a party-litigant. Respondent
sheriff
is an officer of the court, and he has an essential part in the
administration
of justice. He is required to live up to the stringent standards of his
office, and his conduct must at all times be above reproach and
suspicion.
He must steer clear of any act that can tend to undermine his integrity
or to erode somehow the people’s faith and trust in the courts. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ordinarily, the charges
against respondent, once established, would warrant the penalty of
dismissal
from the service. The Court, however, has resolved to adopt the penalty
recommended by the Investigating Judge and the Office of the Court
Administrator
in consideration of his having been in the service for thirty (30) long
years and because the infraction is his first offense. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Jose G. Galvez, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2,
Legazpi City, is SUSPENDED for one (1) year, without pay, with the
stern
warning that a repetition of the same or any other act of infraction on
his part in the future shall be dealt with most severely. Respondent is
likewise ordered to immediately restitute, if not yet done, the amount
of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) to complainant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 59.
[2]
Rollo, p. 17.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 124-126. |