AM P 12 3032; (February, 2013) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-12-3032; February 20, 2013
Ray Antonio C. Sasing, Complainant, vs. Celestial Venus G. Gelbolingo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ray Antonio Sasing was a defendant in an ejectment case where a writ of execution pending appeal was issued. Respondent Sheriff Celestial Venus Gelbolingo was tasked to implement the writ. During the execution, Sasing alleged that Sheriff Gelbolingo improperly took personal belongings exempt from execution. He sent letters requesting the return of these items, but claimed he received no response, prompting him to file an administrative complaint for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, and refusal to perform an official duty.
In her defense, Sheriff Gelbolingo asserted she followed proper procedure. She coordinated with barangay officials to inventory and pack the personal effects on-site in the presence of Sasing’s wife. She explained that the Sasings left without retrieving their belongings, and she temporarily stored the items beside their house for safekeeping. She acknowledged receiving Sasing’s letters but stated that scheduled meetings failed—once due to her court-related delay and once due to Sasing’s absence.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Gelbolingo is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and related charges.
RULING
The Court found the charges of gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, and incompetence unsubstantiated. Gross neglect requires a flagrant and palpable breach of duty, which was not present here. The investigation confirmed Sheriff Gelbolingo adhered to standard procedure by involving barangay officials, conducting an inventory, and securing the belongings. She did not levy or remove the items improperly. However, the Court found her remiss in her duty to communicate courteously and promptly with Sasing regarding his letters. While efforts to meet were made, her failure to formally reply or provide a clear point of contact constituted discourtesy. Considering this was a first offense and mitigating circumstances existed, including her attempt to schedule meetings, the Court deemed a reprimand appropriate. She was admonished for her discourteous acts and warned that repetition would be met with stricter penalties. The decision emphasizes that court personnel must exercise utmost care and courtesy in dealing with the public to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.