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

De Labaco versus Parale

The Case

This is an administrative case. Lorenza M. de Labaco filed a verified letter complaint against Provincial Deputy Sheriff Norberto O. Parale of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch IV at Calauag, charging him with misconduct and dishonesty in the performance of his official duty. The charge arose from his actuations in a civil case before the Municipal Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs as officers of the court, and because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a sheriff who receives money under a writ of execution and keeps it instead of delivering it to the party entitled.

Procedural History

The complaint was referred for investigation, report and recommendation to Executive Judge Efren P. Garcia of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch IV, Calauag. He submitted his findings, finding the respondent guilty of negligence and plain dishonesty, and recommended that the respondent be ordered to restore the amount of 8,500 pesos for deposit with the Municipal Treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon, that he be severely reprimanded, and that he be suspended for at least twelve months without pay, with a warning.

The 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, he recommended approval of the findings of the investigating judge, but was of the opinion that the respondent deserved the more severe penalty of separation from the service with forfeiture of all government benefits, plus restitution of the amount withheld. Court Administrator Lorenzo Relova concurred. The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation and decided the case as an administrative matter in its own name, without any intermediate appellate step.

Facts

The origin was a forcible entry case filed in the Municipal Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon, docketed as Civil Case Number 68, entitled Ildefonso Labaco versus Lourdes Eleazar and others. The decision of the lower court was appealed to the Court of First Instance, which rendered its decision on December 19, 1977, ordering the defendants Eleazars to pay the plaintiff Ildefonso Labaco the amount of ten thousand pesos representing the yearly rentals for the unlawful use and occupation of the property from the time of appeal until possession is delivered back to the plaintiff. Lorenza M. de Labaco is the wife of Ildefonso Labaco.

Pursuant to the writ of execution issued in that case, Deputy Sheriff Norberto O. Parale received from the counsel for the defendants Eleazars, and from the son-in-law of the defendants, various sums evidenced by receipts signed by him. The receipts, dated September 2, 1978 and November 3, 1978, both at Tagkawayan, Quezon, were for an aggregate sum of 8,500 pesos. The investigating judge found these receipts genuine evidence of the delivery of the amount to the respondent in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff and in pursuance of the writ of execution.

The amount was never turned over to the plaintiff to whom it was due. When the plaintiff demanded delivery, the Deputy Sheriff made several promises which were never made good. Upon motion of the plaintiff's counsel, the Municipal Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon ordered him to deposit the amount with the Municipal Treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon, but despite that order he neither delivered the amount to the plaintiff nor deposited it with the treasurer. In a letter to Ildefonso Labaco, the respondent expressed his fear that if he delivered the amount entrusted to him for deposit by a person who was not a party to the case, and the Eleazars won, he might be held liable for the amount. The investigating judge treated this as an admission which the respondent never successfully rebutted.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Provincial Deputy Sheriff Norberto O. Parale is guilty of grave misconduct and gross dishonesty in the performance of his official duty for failing to turn over to the prevailing party the amount of 8,500 pesos he received under a writ of execution, and for failing to deposit the same with the Municipal Treasurer despite an order of the Municipal Court.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement privileges and with prejudice to reemployment in any national or local office or agency, including a government-owned or controlled corporation or instrumentality, is the proper penalty for such misconduct and dishonesty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in full. It applies the general rule of public office that a public officer must discharge the duties of his office with diligence, integrity and honesty, and it refers to Article 315, paragraph 1, subparagraph b, of the Revised Penal Code in discussing a prior case where a sheriff misappropriated for his own use a sum he received from a judgment debtor and which he was under obligation to deliver to the judgment creditor, which the Court considered as a criminal offense under that provision. That reference bears on this case because it shows that the withholding of execution money by a sheriff may carry criminal consequences, which is why the concurring opinion urged that the case be referred to the provincial fiscal through the Minister of Justice for prosecution as the facts may warrant.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found as established that the respondent deputy sheriff, in failing to turn over to the prevailing party the amount of 8,500 pesos despite repeated demands, and in failing to deposit the same with the Municipal Treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon despite an order of the Municipal Court of the same municipality, is guilty of grave misconduct and gross dishonesty in the performance of his official duty. The Court held that the respondent, as an officer of the court, is under obligation to perform the duties of his office honestly and faithfully, and that his conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized with propriety but most of all, must be above suspicion.

On the second issue, the Court accepted the recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator for the more severe penalty. It reviewed a line of cases in which it had dismissed from the service respondent sheriffs and deputy sheriffs for gross dishonesty and grave misconduct in the performance of their official duties, including cases where a deputy sheriff received amounts in connection with the performance of his duties without issuing the corresponding official receipts and gave only his private receipt, where a deputy sheriff misappropriated amounts he received in his official capacity, where a sheriff misappropriated for his own use a sum he received from a judgment debtor and which he was under obligation to deliver to the judgment creditor, where a deputy sheriff failed to enforce a writ of execution and collected money for expenses of a publication that did not materialize, and where a deputy sheriff demanded an amount in return for information regarding the location of levied properties.

The Court restated the governing principle in these words:

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.

It added that they are under obligation to discharge the duties of their office with diligence and integrity and with an overriding concern to promote public interest, and, to emphasize, with honesty of the highest degree.

Doctrine

Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are public officers. As such they 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. They are under obligation to discharge the duties of their office with diligence and integrity and with an overriding concern to promote public interest, and with honesty of the highest degree.

A sheriff or deputy sheriff who receives money under a writ of execution is bound to turn it over to the party entitled, or to deposit it as ordered by the court. Keeping the money despite repeated demands and despite an order to deposit it constitutes grave misconduct and gross dishonesty in the performance of official duty, for which the penalty is dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement privileges and with prejudice to reemployment in any national or local office or agency, including a government-owned or controlled corporation or instrumentality. As an officer of the court, his conduct at all times must not only be characterized with propriety but most of all must be above suspicion.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, ordered his immediate dismissal with forfeiture of retirement privileges and with prejudice to reemployment in any national or local office or agency, including a government-owned or controlled corporation or instrumentality, and ordered him to deposit with the Municipal Treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon the amount of 8,500 pesos within forty-eight hours from notice.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a sheriff's conduct at all times must not only be characterized with propriety but most of all must be above suspicion, and that keeping execution money makes him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty punishable by dismissal. Examiners use this case in administrative law and in the law on public officers to test the standard of conduct of sheriffs and the penalty for dishonesty in the custody of execution funds.