AM 2266; (December, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-2266-A December 14, 1981
LORENZA M. DE LABACO, complainant, vs. PROVINCIAL DEPUTY SHERIFF NORBERTO O. PARALE, respondent.
FACTS
The administrative complaint stemmed from the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. C-107, a forcible entry case. The Court of First Instance ordered defendants Eleazar to pay plaintiff Ildefonso Labaco (complainant’s husband) P10,000.00 as accrued rentals. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Norberto O. Parale, tasked with enforcing the writ, received partial payments totaling P8,500.00 from the defendants’ counsel, Atty. Vicente G. Salumbides, Jr., as evidenced by signed receipts.
Despite repeated demands from the judgment creditor, respondent failed to turn over the collected amount. A subsequent order from the Municipal Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon, directing him to deposit the money with the Municipal Treasurer was likewise ignored. Respondent offered excuses, including an unfounded fear of potential liability should the defendants prevail in a separate quieting of title suit, but he never successfully rebutted the evidence of receipt.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Provincial Deputy Sheriff Norberto O. Parale is administratively liable for his failure to deliver or properly account for the P8,500.00 collected in the course of his official duties.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of Gross Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. The Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Judge and adopted the recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator. The evidence, including signed receipts and the credible testimony of Atty. Salumbides, Jr., conclusively established that respondent received the funds. His failure to deliver them to the prevailing party or to deposit them as ordered by the court, coupled with his unsubstantiated denials and pretexts, constitutes not mere negligence but willful dishonesty. The legal logic is clear: sheriffs, as officers of the court, are held to the highest standards of integrity and accountability. Their duty is to execute court orders promptly and faithfully, ensuring that levied amounts are delivered without delay. By withholding the money, respondent betrayed public trust, undermined the judicial process, and committed an act prejudicial to the service. Such misconduct erodes confidence in the administration of justice and warrants severe penalty.
Accordingly, the Court ordered respondent’s DISMISSAL from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. He was also directed to deposit the P8,500.00 with the Municipal Treasurer of Tagkawayan, Quezon, within forty-eight hours.