JUDGE BERNARDO P. PARDO, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO D. VELASCO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, RESPONDENT.

These are consolidated cases filed
against Deputy Sheriff Antonio Velasco, RTC, Branch 47, Manila.

Administrative Matter No. P-90-408
was filed on February 2, 1990. Complainant charged respondent for unbecoming conduct prejudicial to the
service by reason of prolonged absence without leave, grave abuse of authority,
extortion or bribery and contempt of court.

Complainant alleged that respondent has
been reporting at RTC, Branch 14 without a detail order and inspite of the fact
that his appointment thereat cannot be given due course because there is an
incumbent deputy sheriff at Branch 14. It was alleged further that in Civil Case No. 89-49342 entitled “Stephen
J.E. Bastian v. Richard M. Houghton,” a writ of replevin was issued dated June
30, 1989 addressed to the herein respondent ordering him to seize among others,
one (1) unit of motor vehicle from the defendants; that on the same day,
respondent deputy sheriff seized the motor vehicle involved and other personal
properties and immediately turned over its possession to plaintiff Stephen
Bastian in violation of Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court; that
as a result of this act of the respondent, the subject vehicle could not be
returned to the defendants upon order of the court; and that contempt
proceedings were instituted against the respondent for failure to return the
seized property.

Complainant alleged further that the
counsel for the plaintiff reported to him that respondent deputy sheriff
demanded and was paid the sum of P10,000.00 as bribe money to carry out the
seizure of the motor vehicle and its immediate turn over to the plaintiff.

On July 11, 1990 respondent Deputy
Sheriff was required to comment on the letter-complaint.

In his comment, he averred that on June
30, 1989 an Order for seizure of the personal properties was issued by the
Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 47 and on the same day, he in the presence of
the counsel for the plaintiff, Atty. Pablo M. Taguines and plaintiff Stephen
Bastian enforced the writ and seized one (1) unit of motor vehicle, among
others, belonging to the defendants; that at the behest of the plaintiff’s
counsel, and considering that the Sheriff’s Office of Manila does not have a
storage space for seized properties, he turned over the properties to
plaintiff’s counsel after the latter executed an undertaking, Annex “C” of
comment, which states:

“UNDERTAKING

UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL OF THE PLAINTIFF DO HEREBY UNDERTAKES THE
CUSTODY AND SAFEKEEPING OF THE PROPERTIES SEIZED BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER FOR THE
SEIZURE OF PERSONAL PROPERTIES ISSUED IN CIVIL CASE 89-49342 AND TO DELIVER THE
SAME OF THE COURT UPON ITS ORDER.

MANILA, JUNE 30, 1989.

(Sgd.) Illegible

ATTY. PABLO M.
TAGUINES

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF”

Respondent contended that the turnover
of the said property cannot be regarded as a grave abuse of authority because
it was by virtue of a writ and that the turnover to Atty. Taguines was covered
by an undertaking. Besides, he claimed
that his criminal culpability in turning over the seized properties to
plaintiff’s counsel was dismissed by the Ombudsman in a resolution dated May 2,
1990 (Annex “N” of comment) while the contempt proceedings against him and
Atty. Taguines are on appeal.

Likewise, he denied the charge of
bribery or extortion for lack of sufficient basis, and claimed that complainant
should have taken down the sworn statement of Atty. Manuel Chico who allegedly
reported that he (respondent) demanded the amount of P10,000.00 to carry out the
seizure order. He pointed out that the
records of Civil Case No. 89-49342 readily show that Atty. Chico entered his
first appearance long after the seizure was enforced and therefore, he does not
have personal knowledge of said alleged demand of P10,000.00 for the
enforcement of the writ.

On the charge of absence without leave,
respondent denied the same and claimed that from January, 1989 to June, 1990,
he has been reporting for work from Branch 47 to the Office of the Clerk of
Court with the approval of the Presiding Judge of Branch 47; then to Branch 14
and back to the Office of the Clerk of Court. He substantiated his claim by submitting copies of his daily time
records marked as Annex “M”, “M-1” to “M-17” of his comment.

In the resolution of September 10, 1990,
this case was referred to the First Vice Executive Judge, RTC, Manila for
Investigation, Report and Recommendation.

Administrative Matter P-90-453
refers to the joint affidavit – complaint of Richard Houghton and Carmencita L.
Houghton with the Ombudsman charging respondent Deputy Sheriff Antonio D.
Velasco with gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority relative to Civil
Case No. 89-49342. Pursuant to the
resolution of the Ombudsman dated May 2, 1990 holding that respondent Antonio
Velasco could not be prosecuted for violation of R.A. 3019 for lack of evidence
and if at all, the acts complained of, may constitute as a valid ground for
administrative action, the said complaint was referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator for administrative action.

In a resolution of the Second Division
of this Court dated September 26, 1990, the Office of the Court Administrator
was required to file the necessary administrative complaint against respondent
Antonio Velasco.

On November 9, 1990 respondent Velasco
filed his comment on the complaint of the Court Administrator praying for the
dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this instant complaint is a
reiteration of a case pending with the First Division of this Court involving
the same subject and the same parties.

In the resolution of the Second Division
dated December 10, 1990, this case was consolidated with Adm. Matter No.
P-90-408.

Judge Corona Ibay Somera, who was
assigned the task of conducting an investigation on these administrative cases
submitted her report dated September 9, 1991.

The Investigating Judge reported that at
the scheduled hearing, complainant Judge Bernardo P. Pardo manifested that
Stephen J.E. Bastian has been deported to Australia and can no longer appear to
testify on the charge of indirect bribery and that he was therefore abandoning
said charge. He, however, pursued the
cause re: the writ of replevin and unbecoming
conduct prejudicial to the service by reason of prolonged absence.

On the charge of unbecoming conduct
prejudicial to the service by reason of prolonged absence without leave, the
investigating judge found that there were documentary evidence showing that
from January, 1989 to June, 1990 respondent had been reporting to the Office of
the Clerk of Court, then to Branch 14 and later back to the Office of the Clerk
of Court, Regional Trial Court of Manila. Respondent’s detail to the Office of the Clerk of Court was with
approval of the Judge Lorenzo Veneracion of Branch 47 and from the Clerk of
Court to Branch 14 is with the approval of Presiding Judge Inocencio D.
Maliaman (Annexes “I,” “J,” respondents comment). All these negated the charge of prolonged absences without leave.

On the charge of grave abuse of
authority and grave misconduct in the implementation of the Writ of Replevin,
the reason given by the respondent in immediately delivering the seized
properties to plaintiff’s counsel was that the sheriff’s office has no storage;
that Atty. Taguines executed an undertaking that the same will be produced when
required by the court was done; and that he was motivated by good intention to
keep the seized personal properties from being lost or damaged.

Judge Somera was of the view that good
faith and prudent judgment are not legitimate reasons to be slack in complying
with Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of Court. She concluded that respondent abused his authority to the extent of
failing to do the duties imposed upon him by the rules and recommended that
respondent Antonio Velasco be suspended for one month without pay.

We agree with the foregoing findings and
recommendation of Judge Somera both on the charges of prolonged absence without
leave and misconduct in the implementation of the Writ of Replevin but disagree
with the penalty to be imposed.

The warrant among others, ordered
respondent sheriff to keep the property “in your possession for five (5) days
and at the expiration of said period to deliver it to x x x plaintiff.” This order was not followed by respondent,
who upon seizure, turned over the seized properties to the plaintiff’s counsel
allegedly for safekeeping. His reasons
that the Sheriff’s Office has no place to store the seized items and that there
was an undertaking submitted by Atty. Taguines are not acceptable. Respondent as an officer of the Court is
charged with certain ministerial duties which must be performed faithfully to
the letter. Every provision in the
Revised Rules of Court has a specific reason or objective. In this case, the purpose of the five (5) days
is to give a chance to the defendant to object to the sufficiency of the bond
or the surety or sureties thereon or require the return of the property by
filing a counterbond. The fact that the
order of the Court to re-deliver the seized properties dated August 3, 1989 was
not immediately complied with goes to show that respondent’s actuation was
highly improper and in grave abuse of his authority, tantamount to excess of
authority.

This Court, however, is not unmindful of
the fact that respondent, in an effort to retrieve the properties, sent a
letter dated August 4, 1989 to notify Atty. Taguines of the order for the
re-delivery and directed the return of the seized properties pursuant to the
latter’s undertaking. It was also at
respondent’s instance, that a motion was filed for the issuance of an order for
the re-delivery of the seized properties to the plaintiffs. Further, it appears from the records of this
case that the seized motor vehicle and other personal properties were returned
to the defendants finally on September 27, 1989 per acknowledgment receipt,
signed by Richard and Carmencita Houghton. All of these should render less severe the sanction to be imposed upon
him on account of his culpability.

ACCORDINGLY, the charge of
prolonged absence without leave is DISMISSED but this Court finds and holds
respondent Antonio Velasco liable for abuse of authority in implementing the
Writ of Replevin issued in Civil Case No. 89-49342 and imposes upon him a FINE
of P4,000.00 payable to this Court within thirty (30) days from notice with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.