EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALFONSO B. MELGAR, DEPUTY SHERIFF, BRANCH 6, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAGUIO CITY, RESPONDENT.

In his affidavit dated 20 February 1990, attached by his counsel
to an Ex-Parte Manifestation filed on 21 February 1990 in Civil Case No.
909-R, entitled Accord Finance Corporation versus Victorino H. Natividad, and
pending before Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City,
complainant charges respondent with the misuse of a vehicle in custodia
legis.

Acting on the Ex-Parte Manifestation and Affidavit, Judge
Ruben C. Ayson, presiding Judge of the aforesaid court, issued on 21 February
1990 an Order considering the Affidavit as a formal complaint for grave
misconduct against respondent, directing the latter to file within five (5)
days from receipt thereof his Comment and/or Answer to the said
Affidavit-Complaint, informing him that the Affidavit and his answer would then
be forwarded to this Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, for
appropriate administrative action and ordering him to turn over the attached
vehicle to Rosemarie Alim, the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio City
Sheriff of Baguio City, for safekeeping in accordance with the rules. It was only on 23 February 1990 that
respondent turned over the vehicle to Alim.

In a letter dated 28 February 1990, respondent informed Judge
Ayson that if directed to do so, he would just submit his counter-affidavit to
this Court since the complainant’s affidavit and his (respondent’s) answer
thereto would be forwarded to the same. On 16 March 1990, Judge Ayson transmitted to the Court Administrator the
affidavit of the complainant, together with copies of the complaint in Civil
Case No. 909-R; the answer of the defendants in said case; the motion for
preliminary attachment; the order granting the writ of attachment; the writ of
attachment; the sheriff’s return of the writ; the motion of defendant’s counsel
dated 11 November 1989 calling the attention of the court to the alleged use of
the attached vehicle by the respondent; the order of the court of 14 November
1989; the order of the court of 21 February 1990; the letter of the Clerk of
Court and Ex-Officio City Sheriff Alim dated 23 February 1990 informing
the court of the turning over to her of the vehicle by the respondent; and the
letter of respondent dated 28 February 1990.

In the Resolution of 20 August 1990, this Court required
respondent to comment on the said Affidavit-Complaint; respondent complied with
this order only on 27 December 1990 after he was directed in the Resolution of 28
November 1990 to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him for failing to file the comment. He
admits in his Comment that he turned over the vehicle to the Clerk of Court and
Ex-Officio City Sheriff only on 23 February 1990; he alleges, however,
that he exercised due care in preserving the condition of the vehicle while it
was in his custody and that he brought the same out only on two (2) or three
(3) instances to fill it with gasoline and have the mechanical parts of the
underchassis greased.

Complainant filed a Reply to the Comment submitted by the
respondent. In this Court’s Resolution
of 14 October 1991, the case was referred to Executive Judge Ruben C. Ayson of
the RTC of Baguio City for investigation, report and recommendation.

In the meantime, however, respondent exerted efforts to convince
the complainant to withdraw the complaint. On 22 February 1992, the latter executed an Affidavit of Desistance
which provided in part:

“That the respondent Alfonso B. Melgar had personally come to my
house and explained his side, following which he expressed his deep regrets and
heartfelt apology for whatever mistakes or wrong he may have committed;

That in the spirit of charity and christian living, I have decided
to forgive and forget whatever may have been committed by the respondent, if
only to promote peace and better (sic)
relationship between the two of us;
x x x”

This affidavit was filed with Judge Ayson on 25 February 1992,
the day when the latter was supposed to start the investigation. Complainant did not anymore appear for the
said investigation.

Judge Ayson subsequently submitted a Report, dated 26 February 1992, informing this court of the
above facts and commenting that respondent be, nevertheless, penalized correspondingly because the previous
affidavit of the complainant and the pictures attached thereto provide
sufficient evidence of misconduct.

On 30 March 1992, this Court directed Judge Ayson to investigate
the complaint, using his authority
to issue a subpoena and
to submit the proper recommendation. In
compliance therewith, an investigation was conducted and a Report, dated 25
June 1992, was submitted; the Court Administrator received the same on 14 July
1992.

In the said Report, Judge Ayson made the following findings of
fact and conclusions:

“It appears that in Civil Case No. 909-R entitled Accord Finance
Corporation versus Victorino Natividad et al for Sum of Money pending in RTC,
Branch 6, Baguio City, an Order of Attachment dated May 4, 1987
directed the City Sheriff and/or his deputy, Regional Trial Court, Baguio City to
attach the property of defendant Victorino
Natividad within the City of Baguio not exempt from execution as may be
sufficient to satisfy plaintiff’s demand in the amount of P32,594.85 and to safely keep the same in accordance with the Rules to await judgment and execution in the said case.

By virtue of said Order of Attachment,
a Toyota Pick-up Motor Vehicle belonging to defendant Victorino
Natividad who was then
abroad in the possession of his father, Edilberto Natividad, was seized which
as per Sheriff’s Return dated May
29, 1987 of Alfonso Melgar was under
the custody of the Sheriff’s Office thru him for safekeeping.

In an Ex-Parte Motion dated November 11, 1989, Atty. Emilio Fallarme, counsel for
Victorino Natividad, conveyed to the Court that they were informed that the
Motor Vehicle attached was being used and driven by Sheriff Melgar himself for
his own benefit and had no idea
where it was being stored.

In an Order dated November 14, 1989, Deputy Sheriff Melgar was
warned that his use of said vehicle, if true, is prohibited and was directed to
produce said vehicle from where it had been stored for inspection in court on
November 17, 1989, to see (sic) if it is still in good running condition.

On February 21, 1990, Atty.
Emilio Fallarme again filed another Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion calling
the attention of the Court that despite the Order dated
November 14, 1989 of the Court warning Deputy Sheriff Melgar that it is prohibited by
law for him
to use the vehicle for his own personal use and benefit, Sheriff Melgar
continued to use it for his own personal use and benefit and that Edilberto Natividad,
father of Victorino Natividad, investigated, the matter and was able to take
pictures of the Motor vehicle actually being used by Sheriff Melgar. Thus Edilberto Natividad submitted his
affidavit together with 4 pictures to support the misuse (sic) of the vehicle
for his personal benefit by Sheriff Melgar, which are now the charges (sic)
complained of in this Administrative Complaint.

From the declaration of Edilberto Natividad, it appears that after
persistently receiving reports that Sheriff Melgar was using the attached Motor
vehicle for his personal benefit, he decided to find out for himself. And so Edilberto Natividad and a hired
photographer posted themselves at the Saint Louis School, Campo Filipino at the
Saint Vincent Church where it was reported Sheriff Melgar frequents (sic) as
his child is studying thereat.

And true enough on December 15, 1989 at about 11:30 A.M. after some
waiting, Sheriff Melgar came driving the attached vehicle in the company of
William Baden, another Sheriff, and parked it at Saint Vincent Church. And Melgar alighted and proceeded to Saint
Louis School where his child was studying. Thus pictures were taken of Sheriff Melgar beside the vehicle subject of
attachment parked at Saint Vincent Church.

Furthermore, Edilberto
Natividad declared he did not see Sheriff Melgar dropped (sic) by a gasoline
station at the time.

Again on another occasion, sometime (sic) February 7, 1990 at about
3:00 P.M. while Edilberto Natividad was going towards their Branch Office of
the Rural Bank of Tuba, Benguet, he met the Motor vehicle subject of attachment
driven by Sheriff Melgar speeding along the road fronting the Home Sweet Home
in the vicinity of the Lions Club building and Baguio General Hospital.

Hence charge (sic) of misuse of the Motor vehicle subject of a
preliminary attachment for his personal benefit against Sheriff Melgar.

In his defense, Sheriff Melgar explained that although the Motor
vehicle attached was under custodia legis or in the custody of the Sheriff’s
Office pursuant to an Order of Attachment of the Court to await judgment and
execution, he kept possession of the vehicle and stored it in his place.

And on the day aforementioned when he was seen driving the car at
Saint Vincent Church he was bringing the car to a gasoline station to fill it
up with gasoline and to warm up its engine to keep it in running condition so
it will not deteriorate. Sheriff Melgar
explained that the Saint Vincent Church was along the way going to the gasoline
station. He admitted however having a
child studying at St. Louis School, Campo Filipino beside Saint Vincent Church
and that he has no gasoline
receipts. Thus Sheriff Melgar claims he
did not use the attached Motor Vehicle for his personal benefit.

Further Sheriff Melgar elaborated that since there were no
storehouse facilities of (sic) the City Sheriff’s Office of Baguio, he stored
the vehicle in his place with the diligence of a good father of a family.

It is a fact however, that because of the complaints of the misuse
of the vehicle, it was ordered by the Court that the vehicle be turned over to
the City Sheriff and Clerk of Court Rose Mary Alim who immediately had it
stored at the Maharlika Livelihood Center and had the tickets and receipts for its
safekeeping charges submitted to the Court which Melgar never did.

Going by the aforesaid evidence, this investigating Judge finds the
Complaint of Edilberto Natividad of misuse of the motor vehicle subject of
attachment sufficiently established for the following reasons:

First, it is very obvious that Sheriff Melgar used the Motor
Vehicle subject of attachment in going to Saint Vincent Church for his child
who was studying there at Saint Louis School, Campo Filipino. Melgar admitted he was at Saint Vincent
Church and has a child studying
at Saint Louis School Campo Filipino. The vehicle was certainly not simply passing by while on its way for
gasoline as claimed by Melgar.

It can be taken judicial
notice of that to drop by Saint Vincent Church, you have (sic) to turn inside
and has to (sic) leave the main road to go up Saint Vincent Church and the
School thereat. So that clearly his
purpose was to go to Saint Vincent Church and was not
just passing by it in going to a gasoline station. Sheriff Melgar went to Saint Vincent Church obviously as he even
parked the vehicle there apparently waiting for his child studying there. The personal use of the vehicle
therefore was clear.

Second, Edilberto Natividad categorically said that on the said
occasion he did not see Melgar fill the vehicle with gasoline. Even Melgar admitted he had no gasoline
receipts. In fact coming from City Hall
or even the residence of Melgar in Bakakeng, Saint Vincent Church is farther
than the Caltex gasoline station in Naguilian Road. So that one does not pass by Saint Vincent Church along the way in going to the Caltex Station in
Naguilian Road.

Third, the misuse of the vehicle for a personal purpose on December
15, 1989 which was seen is all the more reprehensible since Melgar was already
warned prior to that in an Order dated November 14, 1989 that any misuse of the
vehicle for his personal benefit was prohibited.

Fourth, the declaration of Edilberto Natividad and the photographs
submitted are sufficient to support the misuse of the attached Motor Vehicle
for personal benefit. The pictures
speaks (sic) a thousand words literally. Why should the attached vehicle be at Saint
Vincent Church and Saint Louis Campo Filipino if it was not really used for the
personal benefit of Sheriff Melgar?

Although the infraction involved maybe considered a slight offense,
still, in view of the several charges against Sheriff Melgar, which are
presently pending showing his being notoriously undesirable, it is recommended that he be suspended for one month without
pay so that he may not commit further offenses while his other charges are being investigated.”

and recommended that:

“x x x Deputy Sheriff Alfonso Melgar be found guilty of misuse of a
Motor Vehicle subject of a preliminary attachment for his personal benefit and
penalized with suspension from office for one month without pay.”

We find the above findings of fact to be indubitably supported by
the evidence. However, We are unable to agree with the
conclusion that the infraction committed is only a slight offense and that
considering that there are several pending charges against respondent showing
that he is notoriously undesirable, he should be meted the penalty of suspension
from office for one (1) month without pay. Said pending cases, regardless of the gravity of the administrative
offenses involved therein, can by no means serve to aggravate whatever penalty
may be imposed in the present case. Respondent is still presumed innocent in those cases until judgments of
conviction shall have been rendered therein.

Be that as it may, this Court concludes that the use of the
attached vehicle for respondent’s personal benefit and advantage, despite the
unequivocal prohibition earlier issued by the RTC, constitutes misconduct and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and shows his blatant
defiance of the latter court’s warning. Such conduct is not only deplorable, it is likewise condemnable for it
violates the norm of public accountability and tends to diminish the people’s
faith in the Judiciary. In Sy vs. Academia and Pardo vs.
Academia [198 SCRA 705, 717 (1991)], this Court held:

“This Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act
or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice
which would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish or
even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. In Jereos, Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr. (71
SCRA 126,131-132). We laid down the
rule that the conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office
charged with the dispensation of justice, like the court below, from the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility. His conduct,
at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above
all else must be above suspicion.

Indeed, every employee of the judiciary
should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty (Ablanida vs.
Intia, Adm. Matter No. R-770-P, May 17, 1988).”

A penalty then of suspension from office for three (3) months
without pay would be in order.

WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby declared guilty
of misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service and is
SUSPENDED from office for three
(3) months without pay, with a warning
that the commission of similar
or grave offenses in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.

This decision shall take
effect immediately upon receipt by respondent of a copy thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ.,
concur.

Feliciano, J., on official
leave.