A.M. No. P-08-2454 ; May 7, 2008
VIRGILIO A. MUSNGI vs. ARIEL D. PASCASIO

FACTS

Complainant Virgilio A. Musngi, owner of V.A. Musngi Forwarders, alleged that respondent Ariel D. Pascasio, Sheriff III of the MTCC, Olongapo City, hired his two closed vans on August 8, 2006, to transport used clothing from Subic to Manila for P7,000 per trip. Respondent presented a writ of execution and assured complainant the goods were legal and taxes were paid. However, Customs authorities at the SBMA Tipo Gate apprehended the shipment as smuggled, prohibited importation under R.A. 4653, leading to the impoundment of complainant’s vans. Complainant pleaded for respondent’s assistance to no avail, suffering unpaid charter fees and substantial lost income during the seven-month seizure proceedings.
Respondent denied the allegations, claiming he merely mediated between the judgment creditor and the transporter and had no contractual relation with complainant. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the case for investigation. The Investigating Judge found that respondent actively participated in hiring the vans, as evidenced by his signatures on the Request for Inspection and gate passes listing the Supreme Court as consignee. Testimony from complainant’s son corroborated that respondent showed the writ and misrepresented the goods as donations to the DSWD.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Ariel D. Pascasio is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct warranting dismissal. The Court emphasized that sheriffs, as officers of the court, must uphold the highest standards of integrity. The investigation established that respondent personally and actively hired complainant’s vans to transport goods he knew or ought to have known were prohibited. His actions went beyond mere mediation; he signed official documents as the authorized representative and misrepresented the nature of the cargo. This constituted a willful intent to violate the law and a flagrant disregard of established rules.
Furthermore, respondent violated Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that sheriffs must obtain court approval for estimated expenses before execution and liquidate them thereafter. Respondent bypassed this procedure entirely, engaging in a private transaction without oversight. His subsequent abandonment of complainant, leaving him to face seizure proceedings alone, compounded the misconduct. Such behavior erodes public trust in the judiciary. Grave Misconduct, as a grave offense under civil service rules, carries the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in any government agency. The Court also ordered respondent to pay complainant P14,000 in actual damages for the unpaid charter fee.