ALFONSO V. AGCAOILI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROUMEL M. REYES, DEPUTY SHERIFF OF MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Agcaoili versus Reyes

The Case

This is an administrative case for serious misconduct in office. Atty. Alfonso Agcaoili, a practicing lawyer and an officer of the court, filed a sworn complaint against Roumel Reyes, then a Deputy Sheriff of Manila assigned to a branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint alleged that the sheriff demanded twenty thousand pesos in exchange for revealing the location of properties he had levied upon. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for sheriffs and all judicial personnel: a public office is a public trust, and an officer of the court who uses his office for personal gain forfeits his place in the service.

Procedural History

The matter began not with a formal complaint but with a revelation in open court. During a hearing on a third-party claim in a case before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the counsel for the First National City Bank disclosed that the complainant had told him of the sheriff's offer. The presiding judge of the Manila court then issued an order requiring Atty. Agcaoili, as an officer of the court, to file his comment under oath. Atty. Agcaoili submitted his affidavit, and the respondent filed an answer, which was not under oath. Hearings followed before the Executive Judge of Manila, who cross-examined the complainant. The investigating judge who substituted for him submitted a report finding the complainant's version more credible and describing the respondent's conduct as highly reprehensible. The Court Administrator submitted his own report, in full accord with the investigating judge. The case then reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court rendered its decision in September 1980.

Facts

On December 21, 1975, the respondent, acting as Deputy Sheriff, levied on several pieces of machinery at the Buena Sawmill in Pamplona, Las Piñas, Rizal, by virtue of a writ of execution issued against Chemplex Philippines, Inc. in a Manila case. The claim of the plaintiff in that case was around one hundred thousand pesos, but the sheriff himself estimated the levied properties to be worth at least one million two hundred thousand pesos. In the meantime, the First National City Bank held writs of attachment against the same defendants in a Rizal case for very large sums, but could not enforce them because the properties could not be found.

Sometime in early January 1976, the respondent met the complainant for the first time at the complainant's office in Makati. The sheriff said he had levied on properties worth far more than the claim, and offered to reveal their location for a consideration of twenty thousand pesos. The complainant countered that the bank would be satisfied to levy as a second attaching creditor and would give a reasonable compensation based on the value of the properties secured. The sheriff refused and insisted on a firm commitment to pay the twenty thousand pesos, otherwise he would not reveal the location. He also suggested that the bank pay off the creditor in whose favor the levy was made, and warned that unless the commitment was given, he might release the properties levied in excess of the claim.

In his answer, the respondent denied the demand. He claimed it was the complainant who offered a reward, which he refused; that he never mentioned twenty thousand pesos; and that he could not release any property without the written conformity of the plaintiff. The investigating judge found the complainant's version more credible, noting that the complainant was a reputable member of the bar, that his answers under cross-examination precluded mistake, and that the respondent's persistent refusal to reveal the location of the properties betrayed the insincerity of his denial.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent, a Deputy Sheriff, demanded twenty thousand pesos in return for information on the location of levied properties.
• Whether or not such conduct constitutes serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office warranting dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

The Court invoked the constitutional precept on public office, which provides:

Public office is a public trust.

This precept is the measure of the respondent's conduct: as a sheriff he held his office in trust for the public, and he used it for personal gain.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found it established that the respondent demanded twenty thousand pesos in return for information regarding the location of levied properties. His denials were far from convincing. The Court gave weight to the investigating judge's finding that the complainant's testimony was credible and that the respondent's refusal to disclose the location of the properties, when he claimed to be willing to cooperate, showed the insincerity of his denial.

On the second issue, the Court held that the demand constituted serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office. The Court said the respondent had been recreant to the rigid standards of integrity required of all functionaries in the judicial branch, and had violated the constitutional precept that a public office is a public trust, having utilized that office more for personal gain and selfish ends. The Court stressed that it is reprehensible acts such as his that undermine and erode the people's faith in the administration of justice, and that his conduct showed his unfitness to continue in office.

Doctrine

A sheriff is an officer of the court, not an agent of the plaintiff. Information about levied properties that comes to him by reason of his office belongs to the court and to the public, and he may not sell it. Demanding a fee, in effect an informer's fee, for revealing the location of levied properties violates the rigid standards of integrity required of judicial personnel and violates the constitutional rule that public office is a public trust. Such conduct is serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office, and it warrants dismissal with forfeiture of retirement privileges and with prejudice to reemployment in any government office.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of serious malfeasance and gross misconduct in office and ordered his immediate dismissal, with forfeiture of retirement privileges and with prejudice to reemployment in any national or local government office or agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a sheriff who demands a fee for information he obtained by reason of his office violates the rule that public office is a public trust and is guilty of serious misconduct. Examiners use this case on the conduct of sheriffs and judicial personnel, and on the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of retirement privileges and prejudice to reemployment.