G.R. No. A.M. No. P-19-3966 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4802-P). February 17, 2021.
Gabriel C. Garlan, complainant, vs. Sheriff IV Ken P. Sigales, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

This is an administrative case against Sheriff IV Ken P. Sigales, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 34. In a prior Resolution dated July 8, 2019, the Court found respondent guilty of simple misconduct for employing unnecessary and excessive force in implementing a writ of attachment. Specifically, he deliberately destroyed the gate and car of complainant Gabriel C. Garlan. The Court suspended him from office for one year. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging the Court misconstrued facts. He claimed he was forced to forcibly open the gate because his assistant was inside the premises and the gate was locked by housekeepers, posing a security risk as it was getting dark and they were in a neighborhood of Muslims, all allegedly relatives of Garlan. He also argued that the Provincial Prosecutor had reversed a finding of probable cause for malicious mischief, and that the maximum penalty for simple misconduct under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases is only six months suspension.

ISSUE

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, considering respondent’s arguments regarding the facts, the Prosecutor’s reversal, the alleged security risk due to the religious makeup of the community, and the propriety of the one-year suspension penalty.

RULING

The Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration with finality and AFFIRMED the July 8, 2019 Resolution.
1. On the facts and use of force: The Court found respondent’s narrative unpersuasive and illogical. There was no justifiable reason for failing to ask the housekeepers or driver inside to open the gate. His claim that an assistant would be “trapped” defied common sense, as that assistant could have opened the gate. There was no proof he attempted to seek cooperation before resorting to force. His actions constituted an excessive and unwarranted use of force and an abuse of authority.
2. On the Prosecutor’s Resolution: The reversal by the Provincial Prosecutor, which found no ill will as respondent was performing an official function, is irrelevant to the administrative proceeding. It does not exculpate him from administrative liability for his conduct in the performance of that duty.
3. On the discriminatory justification: The Court strongly denounced respondent’s attempt to justify his use of force by citing the area as a “neighborhood of Muslims” and a “security risk,” with his assistant potentially being “butchered.” The Court condemned this as biased, discriminatory, and bigoted language that perpetuates harmful stereotypes against religious minorities. Such “othering” cannot justify resort to force and is contrary to the propriety and decorum required of court personnel.
4. On the penalty: The Court is not bound by the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service when exercising its constitutional power of administrative supervision over court personnel. Given the gravity of respondent’s acts—the unnecessary use of force and the invocation of discriminatory stereotypes—a one-year suspension is commensurate.