G.R. No. A.M. No. 1015 July 28, 1978
FEDERICO JAVINES, complainant, vs. ADRIANO MARZON, Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Federico Javines filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Adriano Marzon. Javines alleged that Marzon forcibly seized his Toyota taxi sedan pursuant to a writ of replevin in Civil Case No. C-3481 without serving upon him copies of the requisite complaint, affidavit, and bond. He further contended that the seizure was unauthorized, as evidenced by a letter from the Clerk of Court identifying only two other individuals as the duly assigned sheriffs for the court. An additional charge was that Marzon filed the mandatory Sheriff’s Return or Report beyond the reglementary period.
In his answer, respondent Marzon denied the allegations of force and coercion. He pointed to the complainant’s own admission in the complaint that he had voluntarily delivered the vehicle and had even signed a receipt for it. Marzon also disputed the claim of improper service, asserting that Javines had refused to sign the original order and summons when they were presented. Regarding his authority to act, he explained that standard procedure allowed deputies from the sheriff’s office to serve such writs, and that branch deputies would only handle them if a specific filing fee was paid. On the issue of the delayed return, he argued it was filed within the 20-day period prescribed by the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Adriano Marzon should be held administratively liable for the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the writ of replevin.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case as moot and academic. The legal logic for this dismissal is rooted in a supervening event that rendered the resolution of the charges unnecessary. Prior to this resolution, in a separate administrative matter (A.M. No. P-1246), the Court had already resolved to set aside the proposed renewal of the temporary appointment of respondent Adriano Marzon for December 1976. This prior action effectively terminated his official status as a deputy sheriff.
An administrative case primarily seeks to determine the fitness of a court employee to remain in office. When the respondent is no longer in the service, as was the situation with Marzon following the non-renewal of his appointment, the case loses its practical purpose. Continuing the proceedings would serve no disciplinary end, as the Court could no longer impose sanctions like dismissal, suspension, or fines upon a person who is no longer a court employee. Therefore, the Court exercised judicial economy by dismissing the case, as any ruling on the merits would be purely academic. A copy of the resolution was ordered entered into his record for future reference.