HON. JAMES B. PAJARES, COMPLAINANT, VS. DEPUTY SHERIFF ELIZER ALIPANTE, RESPONDENT.

Elizer Alipante, Deputy
Sheriff of Camarines Sur, was charged with dishonesty, dereliction of duty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under a sworn complaint
filed on July 27, 1984 by Judge James Pajares, RTC Branch 19, Naga City.  The
case was referred for investigation, report and recommendation to the Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court at Naga City. 
Hearings were held on the matter before Acting Executive Judge Juan
Llaguno, at which respondent was represented by counsel.

On the basis of the evidence adduced before him, the
Investigating Judge opined that the guilt of the respondent for neglect of duty
and inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, had
been sufficiently established.  According
to him, the evidence proved that respondent as deputy sheriff undertook to
enforce a writ of preliminary attachment issued in Civil Case No. 1449 of the
Court of First Instance entitled “Freshie Sta. Rosa-Yador v. Dario M.
Javier, et al.”; that pursuant to the writ he levied on several items of
personality in the possession of two of the defendants on May 12, 1982; that he
deposited the articles in a private warehouse owned by a Samson Cagonia, at
Naga City; that somehow, and without respondent’s knowledge, the plaintiffs
were thereafter able to withdraw the property from the warehouse, and
respondent sheriff has since been unable to locate and retrieve the same; and
that respondent failed to file a return on the writ of preliminary attachment,
bestirring himself to do so only when required to do so under threat of
disciplinary action by the complainant Judge, by Order dated March 1,
1984.  The Investigating Judge also
rejected respondent’s proferred excuse of pressure of work for his failure to
file his report on his implementation of
the writ of attachment, as well as his claim that his inability to
retain official custody of the attached property was rendered inconsequential
by the fact that an amicable settlement had been subsequently reached by the
parties concerned and the plaintiffs had credited the defendants with the value
of the property levied on.

The Investigating Judge however declared the other charges
against respondent as not having been adequately substantiated by the evidence
submitted.

We find no cogent reason after reviewing the record to disturb
His Honor’s findings.  We agree that the
respondent is guilty of gross negligence and conduct seriously prejudicial to
the best interest of the service.  The
evidence shows respondent to have been completely unmindful of his duties, so indifferent to his responsibilities as to be scornful of
them, and utterly uncaring of the rights of the parties.  He has by his conduct shown himself to be
unfit for public service, specially that connected with the administration of
justice, which demands the highest sense of dedication and zeal in the
protection and conservation of the rights and interests of litigants as well as
in assuring the efficacy and integrity of the judicial process.

WHEREFORE, the Court declares respondent guilty of gross negligence
and conduct gravely prejudicial to the service, and
ORDAINS HIS DISMISSAL from employment as deputy sheriff, with perpetual
disqualification to hold any other public office, and forfeiture of all
benefits otherwise due him by reason of his service in the Government.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ., concur.