A.M. No. P-06-2288. June 15, 2007.
EDDIE M. TIU, represented by ROMANO M. GUTIERREZ, complainant, vs. ROMEO A. DELA CRUZ, Sheriff, RTC, Branch 23, Naga City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Romano M. Gutierrez, as attorney-in-fact for Eddie M. Tiu, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff Romeo A. Dela Cruz for Dereliction of Duty, Gross Dishonesty, and Fraud. The complaint arose from the service of a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued in a civil case against CASURECO II. Complainant alleged that on February 8, 2006, he personally drove respondent to CASURECO II’s offices to ensure prompt service and, upon respondent’s insistence, gave him P3,000.00. Respondent claimed to have served the TRO but later avoided showing the returned documents. The following day, CASURECO II disconnected Tiu’s electrical supply. A verification revealed that the Sheriff’s Return executed by respondent enumerated only the summons, complaint, and notice of raffle, omitting the TRO entirely.
In his defense, respondent denied demanding or receiving the P3,000.00. He claimed that upon receiving the documents from the clerk of court, which included the TRO, he proceeded to CASURECO II. Not finding the manager, he handed the papers to a personnel who later returned them, but respondent failed to notice the TRO was missing. He attributed the omission in the Sheriff’s Return to inadvertence due to his haste to return to another assignment. He also challenged complainant’s authority to file the administrative case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Romeo A. Dela Cruz is administratively liable for his actions concerning the service of the TRO.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court found his explanation unconvincing. The Sheriff’s Return, a document prepared by respondent himself, specifically listed the documents served and conspicuously omitted the TRO. This official return prevails over his unsubstantiated claim of inadvertence. His failure to exercise due diligence in ensuring the TRO’s proper service and in accurately preparing his return constitutes neglect. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must discharge their duties with utmost care, competence, and efficiency to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. While no evidence of bad faith or corruption was found, his negligence impaired the administration of justice, as the unserved TRO led to the disconnection of electrical service to the complainant’s plant.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, Simple Neglect of Duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension. However, considering the circumstances, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose a fine equivalent to one month’s salary instead of suspension, to allow him to continue performing his official duties. He was sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The penalty serves to underscore the high standard of responsibility required of all judiciary personnel.