G.R. No. P-1313 August 6, 1980
JOSEFINA ALMALEL VDA. DE HERBER, complainant, vs. LEODY MANUEL, Deputy Sheriff of Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Josefina Herber, a widow, filed a verified administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Leody Manuel for misconduct. She alleged that on April 23, 1976, at around 6:00 a.m., Manuel entered her residence to execute a warrant of seizure for a television set purchased by her son. According to her affidavit, after she attempted to close a door panel upon seeing him, Manuel forcibly pushed it open, causing it to strike her right breast and resulting in physical injuries. She subsequently obtained a medical certificate noting tenderness and irregular heartbeat. Herber contended the sheriff’s early morning entry was improper and indicative of ulterior motives.
In his comment, respondent Manuel presented a contrasting version. He asserted he arrived at 6:30 a.m. in uniform, was let in by the complainant’s mother, and properly identified himself. He claimed Herber became angry, pushed him, and attempted to lock a door, which he gently pushed open by inserting his foot to prevent being locked out. He denied using force against her and stated he later secured police assistance to complete the seizure lawfully. The case was referred for investigation, but by the time of the hearing, complainant Herber had returned to the United States and could not attend.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Leody Manuel should be held administratively liable for misconduct based on the conflicting accounts of the incident.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The core issue hinged on the credibility of the conflicting factual narratives presented by the complainant and the respondent. Administrative liability must be established by substantial evidence. In this case, the direct contradiction between the parties’ sworn accounts created a factual dispute that required resolution through a formal investigation where both sides could present evidence and be subject to cross-examination.
The referral for investigation was significantly delayed, and the complainant’s subsequent unavailability to participate in the hearing proved fatal to her case. With the complainant absent and unable to substantiate her allegations during the investigative proceedings, the Court was left with only the respondent’s counter-statement and no opportunity to assess witness credibility or reconcile the opposing claims. Consequently, the complaint could not be prosecuted effectively. In the absence of clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of a public officer’s duties, the Court had no sufficient basis to impose administrative sanctions. The dismissal was without prejudice to any other legal remedies but was necessitated by the failure to present a prima facie case in the administrative forum.