A.M. No. P-00-1431. November 27, 2000. SOFRONIO VENTURA and FRANCISCO BALTAZAR JR., complainants, vs. RODOLFO CONCEPCION, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Sofronio Ventura was a defendant in a civil case for collection of money where a writ of preliminary attachment was issued. Respondent Sheriff Rodolfo Concepcion levied Ventura’s Isuzu dump truck pursuant to the writ. After initially parking the vehicle in the garage of the plaintiff’s representative, Francisco Baltazar Jr., respondent demanded and took custody of the truck. Baltazar later discovered the truck being used by a third party, Lorenzo Go, to haul sand and gravel. Investigation revealed that respondent had executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over the truck in favor of Go for P80,000.00, using a falsified Certificate of Registration that made it appear respondent was the owner.
Respondent denied selling the vehicle, claiming Ventura had sold it to another person, Ricardo Garcia, in 1999. He submitted a subsequent deed of sale to support this. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the sequence of events showed respondent sold the truck to Go in December 1997 while it was under his official custody. The sale to Garcia in March 1999 occurred only after respondent had presumably repurchased the vehicle from Go and the attachment was discharged. The OCA also noted respondent had a prior administrative infraction for dereliction of duty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Rodolfo Concepcion is administratively liable for grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and dishonesty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty as charged and is dismissed from service. The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings. The documentary evidence, particularly the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase executed by respondent in favor of Lorenzo Go, conclusively proved he sold the levied vehicle. The details of the truck in this deed matched those in the sheriff’s own Notice of Levy. This act violated his duty under the Rules of Court to merely safeguard property under attachment. His defense of a later sale by the complainant was untenable, as that subsequent transaction occurred over a year after his own unauthorized sale and after the filing of the administrative complaint. His use of a falsified registration certificate to facilitate the sale constituted clear dishonesty. These acts, compounded by a prior record of dereliction, demonstrated a pattern of conduct utterly incompatible with the integrity and trust demanded of a sheriff. Sheriffs are crucial to the judicial process and must uphold the principle that a public office is a public trust. Grave misconduct and dishonesty warrant the supreme penalty of dismissal. The Court thus ordered his dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to re-employment, and referred the records to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution.