A.M. No. P-1 July 25, 1975
CIRILO TINAHA, complainant, vs. BENJAMIN MARAVILLA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Cirilo Tinaha charged Deputy Sheriff Benjamin Maravilla with arbitrarily seizing his two goats valued at P80 on July 15, 1972. The respondent justified the act as a levy pursuant to an alias writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 5054, which ordered Tinaha to vacate a parcel of land and pay rental arrears and attorney’s fees. The writ was initially deputized to the local Chief of Police. After the complainant refused to vacate, the respondent personally enforced the ejectment on July 8, 1972. A week later, he returned with the winning party and, finding the complainant absent, took the two goats without consent, loading them into a vehicle. The seizure was witnessed by the complainant’s son.
The respondent later presented documents to legitimize the levy, including a receipt, a notice of sale, and a memorandum of sale, claiming a public auction was held where the judgment creditor purchased the goats. The investigating judge, however, found severe irregularities. The notice of sale was dated July 24, 1972, and allegedly mailed to a remote municipality 155 kilometers away, yet a police certification stated it was posted there on the same date—a physical impossibility given mail transit times. The memorandum and certificate of sale contained anomalous phrasing, referencing the sale date explicitly despite being dated on that same day, suggesting post-facto fabrication.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Benjamin Maravilla is administratively liable for misconduct in office.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and is dismissed from service. The Court found the seizure of the goats was unlawful and the subsequent documentation was fabricated to conceal the malfeasance. The alias writ of execution commanded the sheriff to enforce ejectment and collect monetary awards, but it did not specifically authorize the seizure of personal property like livestock. More critically, the respondent’s own evidence betrayed fraud. The notice of sale could not have been received and posted in New Bataan on the same day it was mailed from Davao City given the distance and ordinary mail delivery time. The language in the memorandum and certificate of sale, which redundantly stated the date of the auction as “on August 1, 1972” instead of using “this morning,” indicated the documents were created after the fact. This deliberate attempt to manufacture a paper trail transforms a simple act of arbitrary seizure into a scheme to subvert judicial process. Such conduct undermines public trust in the integrity of court officers and the administration of justice. The penalty of dismissal is warranted to uphold the sanctity of law enforcement and judicial proceedings. The case was also referred for potential criminal prosecution.