AM P 05 1952; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-05-1952. July 8, 2005
F.F.I. Dagupan Lending Investors, Inc., represented by Jessie M. Co, Manager, Complainant, vs. Vinez A. Hortaleza, Deputy Sheriff IV, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant F.F.I. Dagupan Lending Investors, Inc. filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Vinez A. Hortaleza for abuse of authority and malversation. The complaint stemmed from the implementation of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 13218. Respondent levied upon the defendants’ personal properties, including a motorized tricycle owned by defendant Olimpio Nazareno. However, respondent failed to include the tricycle in the notice of levy and subsequent public auction. Complainant’s representative, Lincoln Magtuloy, later discovered that the tricycle had been sold privately for ₱11,000.00 through a negotiated sale facilitated by respondent, who allegedly misappropriated the proceeds. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming the tricycle was claimed by a third party and was merely in his custody awaiting a third-party claim affidavit and further court orders.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Vinez A. Hortaleza is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but only for Simple Neglect of Duty, not for the grave charges of abuse of authority and malversation. The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove malversation or a fraudulent sale. The complainant failed to substantiate the claim that respondent sold the tricycle and misappropriated the funds, as the alleged buyer was not presented, and no deed of sale was offered in evidence. However, respondent was negligent in the performance of his official duties. He failed to include the levied motorized tricycle in his sheriff’s return and did not submit periodic returns to the court as required under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This omission created suspicion and demonstrated a disregard of duty stemming from carelessness. As an officer of the court, a sheriff must act with propriety and avoid any conduct that erodes public trust in the judiciary. Considering it was his first offense and no actual damage was proven, the penalty was mitigated. Respondent is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning.