A.M. No. P-03-1741. March 23, 2004. ISIDORO ABAPO, complainant, vs. JUAN A. GATO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Lapulapu City, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Isidoro Abapo charged respondent Sheriff Juan A. Gato with Neglect of Duty and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Office of the Ombudsman, which referred the case to the Court. The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to implement a writ of attachment in a civil case despite a partial payment of ₱3,000 out of a demanded ₱5,000 for purported expenses. The respondent claimed he attempted to enforce the writ twice but was initially hindered by a court order suspending it and later by the unavailability of the defendant’s management. He did not directly confirm or deny demanding the money.
The case was investigated by the Executive Judge, who found the charges unsubstantiated as the testimonies supporting the claim of payment contradicted each other. Notably, the complainant himself withdrew his complaint during the investigation, stating it arose from a misunderstanding. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, recommended a fine, finding that the respondent likely demanded and received money without the required court approval under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Juan A. Gato is administratively liable for Neglect of Duty and for demanding and receiving money without court approval.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The Court disagreed with the OCA’s finding. The ruling hinged on the complainant’s complete recantation during the investigation. He explicitly withdrew all allegations, stating under oath that his charge about the respondent demanding money was “not true and correct” and arose from a misunderstanding. This judicial confession effectively dismantled the factual foundation of the administrative charge.
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the allegations by substantial evidence. The complainant’s retraction left the corroborating testimonies of other witnesses without any basis. With the sole accuser disavowing his own accusation, the charge was rendered unsubstantiated. Consequently, the presumption that a public officer has regularly performed his duties prevails. The Court found no credible evidence to overcome this presumption or to prove that the respondent violated procedural rules for sheriff’s expenses. Therefore, the complaint could not prosper.