A.M. No. P-99-1332. January 17, 2002. GERTRUDES V. VDA. DE VELAYO, complainant, vs. JOHN C. RAMOS, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Gertrudes V. Vda. de Velayo charged respondent Sheriff John C. Ramos with Grave Misconduct. The charge stemmed from Civil Case No. Br. 24-0070, where the court had ordered the parties to refrain from cultivating the disputed land and directed the sheriff to supervise the harvesting of a standing palay crop and deposit the landowner’s share with the court. Complainant alleged that on November 18, 1997, respondent forcibly took ten cavans of harvested palay, sold them for P2,612.00, and misappropriated the proceeds instead of immediately depositing them. She claimed he only made the deposit on December 10, 1997, after she had filed a complaint, as evidenced by a prior certification from the Clerk of Court stating no deposit had been made.
Respondent, who had compulsorily retired by the time of the investigation, denied misappropriation. He explained that upon learning of a harvest in violation of the court order, he secured ten cavans left behind by complainant’s workers. As the palay was wet, he sold it for P2,612.00. He admitted depositing the amount on December 10, 1997, attributing the delay to his subsequent attempts to supervise the harvest of the remaining crop, which was ultimately destroyed. An affidavit of desistance was later executed by the complainant, but the Court ordered a thorough investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff John C. Ramos is administratively liable for his actions concerning the proceeds from the sale of the palay.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but for Simple Neglect of Duty, not Grave Misconduct. The Court agreed with the investigating judge that there was no evidence of misappropriation, as the money was eventually accounted for and deposited with the court. However, respondent failed in his duty to deposit the proceeds with reasonable promptness. Sheriffs are ministerial officers who must execute court orders with utmost care and diligence. The Rules of Court require that money collected by virtue of a writ or process should be immediately deposited with the clerk of court or fiscal. Respondent’s delay from November 18 to December 10, 1997, without a satisfactory explanation, constitutes neglect in the performance of this duty.
The Court emphasized that the conduct of court personnel must always be beyond reproach to preserve public trust in the judiciary. While the complainant’s desistance does not automatically absolve liability, it was considered alongside the finding that this was respondent’s first offense. Accordingly, the penalty of a P2,000.00 fine was deemed appropriate, to be deducted from the P20,000.00 previously withheld from his retirement benefits.