G.R. No. A.M. No. P-107 July 18, 1975
ANTONIO PALAFOX, JR., complainant, vs. CHARITO AKUT, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Antonio Palafox, Jr. charged respondents Charito Akut and Maximiano Mabanag, Jr., the ex-officio Provincial Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Misamis Oriental, with conducting a simulated and graft-ridden auction sale. The sale, held on December 13, 1972, involved three motor vehicles and a sewing machine to satisfy a money judgment in favor of Cagayan de Oro Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC) against Palafox. The complainant alleged the respondents acted in collusion with IFC, providing it unwarranted preference in violation of procedural rules and the Anti-Graft Act, causing him undue injury.
The evidence from the investigation revealed a different narrative. On the auction day, the respondents accommodated Mrs. Palafox’s request for postponement by having Deputy Sheriff Mabanag escort her to negotiate with IFC’s lawyer. The lawyer refused. Sheriff Akut and another deputy personally appealed to the lawyer, but he remained unrelenting. Mabanag then proceeded with the sale, publicly announcing it three times. Only IFC bid on the vehicles, and a third party bid on the sewing machine. The complainant’s wife was present, received a copy of the minutes without protest, and later acknowledged the sheriff’s efforts to help.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for conducting an illegal or simulated auction sale through graft, corruption, or partiality.

RULING

The Court exonerated the respondents, finding no administrative liability. The legal logic rests on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, which the complainant failed to rebut with substantial evidence. The investigation showed the respondents acted properly and even commendably by actively attempting to secure a postponement for the judgment debtor. Their conduct—making announcements, allowing inspection, and facilitating negotiations—demonstrated a regular, above-board process. The claim of a simulated sale was contradicted by the complainant’s own witness, his wife, who admitted an auction occurred and acknowledged the sheriffs’ assistance.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the fairness of the bid prices was substantiated by IFC’s subsequent resale at identical amounts, indicating no unwarranted profit or preference was given. Even assuming the prices were low, this alone does not establish bad faith, collusion, or a violation of procedure absent clear evidence of irregularity. The respondents merely executed a court writ, and their actions were within the bounds of their official functions. Therefore, the charges of graft and corruption were unsubstantiated.