A.M. No. R-711-P. June 29, 1993.
SPS. ALFONSO AQUINO LIM and DHIDA LABIRAN-LIM, complainants, vs. OSCAR GUASCH, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch XLII, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, the spouses Alfonso and Dhida Lim, charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Oscar Guasch with illegal exaction, causing undue injury, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence. In Civil Case No. 85-31514, a writ of execution was issued requiring payment of damages to complainants. Respondent levied upon personal property (a living room set, a radio-phonograph, and a television set) from the defendants’ residence and scheduled an auction sale. Complainants alleged that respondent demanded and received P300.00 for “guards fees” and P400.00 for “representation, transportation and service expenses” without issuing receipts. One day before the auction, a third-party claim was filed. Complainants posted an indemnity bond. On the auction date, complainants and other bidders waited at the site for almost four hours, but respondent did not appear. No auction was conducted. Instead, the defendants later removed and carted away the levied articles. Respondent rescheduled the auction, but on the reset date, the defendants’ house was padlocked and uninhabited. In his defense, respondent denied demanding money, claimed he arrived at the auction site but complainants did not, and asserted he could not conduct the sale without knowing complainants’ intended bid. He blamed complainants for failing to secure the property and alleged they sought to harass him for refusing to humiliate the defendants.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Oscar Guasch is administratively liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross negligence in the performance of his duties.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court, agreeing with the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge, held that complainants substantiated their accusations with substantial evidence. Respondent’s denials were flimsy and unworthy of credence against complainants’ positive testimony. The Investigating Judge found complainants’ eagerness for the auction incontestable, as shown by their prompt posting of an indemnity bond and a written request to proceed with the sale. There was no established motive for the complainants, one being a lawyer, to testify falsely. Respondent’s demand and receipt of unauthorized fees (P700.00 total) not prescribed under Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and his failure to issue receipts, constituted dishonesty and gross misconduct. His failure to appear at the scheduled auction without valid cause was a dereliction of duty. His absence, coupled with his failure to secure the levied property, enabled its removal and effectively constituted an unauthorized lifting of the levy. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Deputy Sheriff Oscar Guasch from the service for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross negligence, with forfeiture of retirement privileges and benefits (except accrued earned leave), and ORDERED him to return the P700.00 exacted from complainants. The resolution was immediately executory.