LORENZA M. DE LABACO, COMPLAINANT, VS. PROVINCIAL DEPUTY SHERIFF NORBERTO O. PARALE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, BRANCH IV, CALAUAG, QUEZON, RESPONDENT.

In her verified letter complaint dated July 7, 1979, Lorenza M.
de Labaco charges Provincial Deputy Sheriff Norberto
O. Parale of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch IV at Calauag,
with misconduct and dishonesty in the performance of his official duty in
connection with his actuations in Civil Case No. C-107 of the Municipal Court
of Tagkawayan, Quezon.

Executive Judge Efren P. Garcia of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch IV, Calauag, to
whom this case was referred for investigation, report and recommendation,
submitted the following findings dated July 14, 1980:

“As it appears on record these administrative complaints
originated from a Writ of Execution issued by the Municipal Court of Tagkawayan Quezon in Civil Case
No. C-107 entitled “Ildefonso Labaco versus Lourdes Eleazar, et
al.” Originally, this is a Forcible Entry case filed in the Municipal
Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon
and docketed therein as Civil Case No. 68. 
The decision by the
lower Court in said case was appealed to this Court which sub­sequently
rendered its decision dated December
19, 1977, the dispositive portion of
which is hereunder quoted, to
wit:

‘Wherefore, all premises con­sidered, judgment is hereby rendered
in favor of the plaintiff Ildefonso Labaco and against the defendants Eleazars x x x hereby ordering the
defendants to pay to plaintiff the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00)
representing the yearly rentals for the unlawful use and occupation of the
property in question from the time of appeal until possession is delivered back
to the plaintiff.’

“It is alleged in both the letter-complaints of Lorenza M. de Labaco who is the
wife of Ildefonso Labaco,
the plaintiff in the above cited case and Atty. Pedro G. Uy
who stands as counsel for the same plaintiff in the said case, that pur­suant
to the writ of execution issued therein Deputy Sheriff Norberto O. Parale received the sum of P8,500 from Atty. Vicente M. Salumbides, Sr., counsel for the defendants Eleazars in said case and
Atty. Vicente G. Salumbides Jr., son-in law of said
defendants, duly evidenced by receipts signed by him; that said amount,
however, was not turned over to the plaintiff to whom the amount was due; that
when the plaintiff demanded the delivery of said amount said Deputy Sheriff
made several promises to do so which were never made good; that upon the
failure of said Sheriff to keep good his promise, the Municipal Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon upon motion of
plaintiff’s counsel ordered him to deposit said amount with the Municipal
Treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon
but that inspite the issuance of such order said
Deputy Sheriff has not delivered the amount to plaintiff nor has he deposited
it with the treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon.

xxx                               xxx                               xxx

“From the evidence presented the Court finds the receipts
marked Exhibits “A” and “A-1” as genuine evidence of the
delivery of the sum of P8,500 by Atty. Vicente G. Salumbides,
Jr., son-in-law of the defendants Eleazars to
Norberto O. Parale, the respondent herein, in his
capacity as Deputy Sheriff and in pursuance of the Writ of Execution issued by
the Mun. Court of Tagkawayan,
Quezon.  Said
receipts dated September 2, 1978 and November 3, 1978 both at Tagkawayan, Quezon were for an
aggregate sum of P8,500 only such that on March 26, 1979 the respondent Deputy Shriff sent a notice to the parties to the case requiring
the Eleazars to satisfy the balance of P10,000, which
this Court awarded in favor of the plaintiff Ildefonso
Labaco, Said balance, however, has not been paid for
the defendants Eleazars, in another letter by
respondent Parale to Ildefonso
Labaco, are adamant to pay it for the reason that the
defendants have filed an action for quieting of title against Ildefonso Labaco.  In the same letter, the respondent Deputy
Sheriff expressed his fear that in the event he delivers the amount entrusted
to him for deposit by Atty. Vicente G. Salumbides,
Jr., who is not a party to the case, and the Eleazars
win, he may be held liable for said amount. 
This is an admission by respondent Parale
which he never successfully rebutted.  xx xx xx To cap all
these, the mere denial of the respondent Deputy Sheriff of his receipt of the
amounts mentioned without any evidence to support it cannot go against the oral
declaration of Atty. Vicente G. Salumbides, Jr.,
under his lawyer’s oath and as the Municipal Mayor of Tagkawayan,
Quezon given before the Municipal Court of said
municipality to the effect that he personally and actually handed over to said
Deputy Sheriff the sums of P2,500.00 and P5,000.00.  Neither could the respondent deny having
received from Atty. Vicente M. Salumbides, Sr. the
other sum of P1,000.00 as he could not have signed Exhibit “A” which
indicate the amounts deposited with him on three (3) different occasions.  There was neither a denial of the signatures
on the evidence of payment which the court in comparison with the signatures of
the same respondent appearing in other exhibits finds to be similar and one and
the same.

xxx                               xxx                   xxx

“Such act of the respondent Deputy Sheriff is not only
negligence hut also plain dishonesty in the performance of his official
duties.  It is a misconduct which erodes
the public’s faith and confidence in courts and its decisions which should not
be allowed to pass unchecked and its authors should be punished
accordingly.”

The Investigating Judge recommended that respondent Parale a) be ordered to restore the amount of P8,500.00,
the same to be deposited with the Municipal treasurer of Tagkawayan
Quezon; b) be severely reprimanded for his dishonesty
and negligence in the performance of his duties; and c) be sus­pended for at
least twelve (12) months without pay, with a warning that a repetition of this
misconduct will be dealt with more drastically.

This administrative matter was then referred to Deputy Court
Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza for study, report and recommendation.  In a memorandum submitted to Chief Justice
Enrique M. Fernando dated October 15, 1981, he recommended approval of the
findings of Investigating Judge but is of the opinion that “respondent
Provincial Deputy Sheriff Parale deserves that more severe penalty of separation from the service
with forfeiture of all government benefits, plus restitution of the amount of
P8,500 withheld by him, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offense committed.”
This recommendation was concurred in by Court Administrator Lorenzo Relova.  We accept
the recommendation.

In the light of the recorded evidence, We find as established
that respondent deputy sheriff, in failing
to turn over to the prevailing party in the subject Civil Case the amount of
P8,500 despite repeated demands from the latter nor to deposit the same with
the Municipal treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon despite an order from the Municipal Court of the same municipality is guilty of grave
misconduct and gross dishonesty in the performance of his official duty.  Indeed, respondent deputy sheriff, as an
officer of the court, is under obligation to perform the duties of his office
honestly and faithfully and his conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized with propriety but most of all, must be above suspicion.

In the following cases, the Court dismissed from the service
respondent sheriffs and deputy sheriffs for gross dishonesty and grave
misconduct in the performance of their official duties:

1)   Ganaden
vs. Bolasco, 64 SCRA 50, where respondent deputy
provincial sheriff of CFI of Zambales, Branch I,
received certain amounts in connection with the performances of his duties as
deputy sheriff without issuing the corre­sponding official receipts therefor and gave only his private receipt.

2)   Abdulwahid
vs. Reyes, 81 SCRA 213, where respondent deputy sheriff of Zambales City, misappropriated certain amounts he received
in his official capacity for which he issued only his private receipts, and
which amounts he returned only after the filing of the administrative case.

3)   Abejaron
vs. Panes, 84 SCRA 494, where respondent Jose V. Panes, as ex-officio
provincial sheriff of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I,
misappropriated for his own use the sum of P15,000 which he received from
judgment debtor and which he was under obligation to deliver to judgment
creditor, which this Court considered as a criminal offense under Article 315,
par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.

4)   Custodio
vs. Fulinara, 94 SCRA 808, where respondent deputy
provincial sheriff of Zambales failed to enforce a
writ of execution and make a return thereof and collected from complainant
P500.00 allegedly for expenses of publication of auction sale which did not
materialize and his failure to return the said amount.

5)   Agcaoili
vs. Reyes, 100 SCRA 188, where respondent deputy sheriff of Manila
demanded an amount of P20,000 in return for information regarding the location
of levied properties.

Thus, it may be well to state again that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are public officers and
as such must serve with the highest sense of responsibility and
the highest degree of integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and at all times
remain accountable to the people and their conscience^[1] They
are under obligation to
discharge the duties of their office with diligence and integrity and
with an overriding concern to promote public interest,^[2]
and, to emphasize, with honesty of the highest degree.

IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, respondent is
hereby found guilty of GROSS DISHONESTY AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT prejudicial to
the best interest of the service and his immediate dis­missal is hereby
ordered, with forfeiture of retirement privileges and with prejudice to reemployment in any national, local office
or agency, including government­-owned-or-controlled corporation or
instrumentality.  He is also ordered to
deposit with the Municipal treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon, the amount of P8,500 within a period of forty-eight
(48) hours from the notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
Santos, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., files a brief
concurrence.

^[1] Phil Trial Lawyers Association, Inc. vs. Basco, 100 SCRA 416; Ganaden
vs. Bolasco, 64 SCRA 50; Tago-an
vs. Roa, 72 SCRA 466.

^[2] Genio vs. Abonales, 66
SCRA 612.

6 pt
6 pt
0
3