A.M. No. P-01-1476. January 16, 2003. EMMA A. ALBELLO, complainant, vs. JOSE O. GALVEZ, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Legazpi City, respondent.
FACTS

This administrative case originated from a complaint for misrepresentation and dishonesty filed by Emma Albello against Sheriff Jose Galvez. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 3941 for forcible entry, where a decision ordered defendant Rommel Albello (complainant’s husband) to vacate the premises. Upon finality, a writ of execution was issued. The parties later agreed to padlock the property pending a related quieting of title case, with the sheriff and the opposing party each holding a set of keys.
Complainant alleged that in 1999, respondent sheriff demanded and received P3,000.00 from her mother-in-law, Salve Albello, with the assurance that he would “take care of everything” and open the padlocked property. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman indorsed the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his comment, respondent admitted receiving the money but claimed it was intended as attorney’s fees for a certain Atty. Daep to help the complainant, and that he returned it after the lawyer refused the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Jose O. Galvez is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Investigating Executive Judge, after a thorough investigation, found the complainant’s version more credible. The testimonies of the complainant and her witness were natural and without ill motive. Respondent’s own admission of receiving the P3,000.00 bolstered the complaint. The Court found the claim that the money was for attorney’s fees unpersuasive; even if true, it constituted an inexcusable act of imprudence for a sheriff to intercede in such a manner for a party-litigant.
Sheriffs, as officers of the court, play an essential role in the administration of justice and are held to the highest standards of integrity. Their conduct must be beyond reproach to preserve public trust in the judiciary. Respondent’s act of receiving money under the circumstances, whether as an alleged facilitation fee or for attorney’s fees, constituted dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service. While the infraction normally warrants dismissal, the Court, considering respondent’s 30 years of service and that this was his first offense, adopted the OCA’s recommended penalty. Respondent Jose O. Galvez is SUSPENDED for one year without pay, ordered to restitute P3,000.00, and sternly warned that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.