G.R. No. P-93-796. September 22, 1995.
Marieta B. Briones, complainant, vs. Nonilon A. Caniya, Deputy Sheriff, Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marieta B. Briones charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Nonilon A. Caniya with grave misconduct and abuse of authority. Briones was the plaintiff in a replevin case where a writ was issued and assigned to Caniya for enforcement. Caniya seized a motor vehicle pursuant to the writ. Briones alleged that after the expiration of the period for filing a counter-bond, Caniya kept and personally used the vehicle instead of delivering it to her. She further claimed he demanded money for his services and, on one occasion, took another vehicle from her garage under a false pretext, failing to issue a receipt and leaving its whereabouts unknown.
In his defense, Caniya denied the charges. He claimed he kept the vehicle at his residence for “safekeeping” after the complainant failed to claim it, merely warming up the engine for preservation. He denied receiving money and asserted the other vehicle was released to a third-party claimant by court order. During the investigation, Briones filed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating the case arose from a misunderstanding and she no longer wished to pursue it.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Deputy Sheriff should be administratively disciplined despite the complainant’s desistance.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative cases against court personnel are matters of public interest and are not dependent on the will of the private complainant. Desistance does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and discipline erring officials to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. The Court found sufficient evidence to conclude that Caniya committed misconduct.
The legal logic is clear: a sheriff’s use for personal benefit of property in custodia legis, such as a vehicle seized under a writ of replevin, constitutes misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Caniya’s act of keeping the vehicle at his residence beyond the necessary period, without turning it over to the Clerk of Court, and his alleged personal use, demonstrated improper conduct. The Court rejected his claim of mere “safekeeping” as an overreach of his duties. Following precedent, such actions warrant suspension. Accordingly, respondent Nonilon A. Caniya was SUSPENDED from office for THREE (3) MONTHS without pay.