AM 2529; (December, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-2529 December 19, 1981
VICENTE TO, complainant, vs. ALFREDO DISTOR, Deputy Sheriff of Manila, respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from the disappearance of a Chocolate Vendo Machine levied upon by Deputy Sheriff Alfredo Distor on March 2, 1981. The machine was among items advertised for a public auction sale on March 11, 1981, in front of the City Court of Manila. After the sale, complainant Vicente To, the successful bidder, discovered the specific machine was missing and reported the loss to Executive Judge Jose C. Colayco.
Respondent Distor, directed to explain the loss, admitted the machine was “lost” while under the custody of two individuals, Primo de Luna and Enrique Villavivo, whom he had appointed to guard it. Subsequently, complainant To filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, stating the parties had settled amicably and he was no longer interested in prosecuting the case. Despite this motion, Judge Colayco proceeded to submit a recommendation for disciplinary action.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Alfredo Distor is administratively liable for the loss of the levied property under his custody.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Distor guilty of gross negligence. The Court emphasized that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are officers of the court and integral agents in the administration of justice, charged with serving writs, executing processes, and implementing court orders. This role demands the discharge of duties with due care and utmost diligence.
The legal logic is clear: by entrusting the levied vendo machine to two private individuals without ensuring proper safeguards, Distor failed to comply with the stringent standard of care required of a court officer. His act constituted a serious breach of his legal duty to safeguard properties that come into his official possession. The loss, occurring under these circumstances, was not mere simple negligence but gross negligence. This transgression vitiated the integrity of court personnel, prejudiced the parties involved, and, most significantly, undermined public faith in the effectiveness of the justice system. Consequently, the Court modified the recommended penalty. Instead of a one-month salary fine, it imposed a three-month suspension without pay, effective upon notice, not chargeable to leave credits, with a stern warning against future irregularities.