AM P 13 3123; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-13-3123; June 10, 2014
Case Parties: ALBERTO VALDEZ, Complainant, vs. DESIDERIO W. MACUSI, JR., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tabuk, Kalinga, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Alberto Valdez charged respondent Sheriff Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr. with misfeasance, nonfeasance, or conduct prejudicial to the service for failing to act on a writ of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) on December 3, 2003, in Criminal Case No. 4050 (“People v. Jorge Macusi y Wayet”). The sheriff submitted only one Partial Report dated May 3, 2006, which the MTCC judge found improper and inadequate, noting it appeared the sheriff was “lawyering for the accused.” The judge also discovered the accused was the sheriff’s brother, a fact the sheriff failed to disclose. The sheriff did not submit further periodic reports as required. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the sheriff liable, noting this was his second offense of simple neglect of duty, having been previously found guilty in a 2013 case (OCA v. Macusi, Jr.).
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr. is administratively liable for his failure to properly execute the writ and submit periodic reports, and for his failure to disclose a conflict of interest.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s findings but modified the penalty. The Court held that the sheriff violated Section 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to submit mandatory periodic reports every 30 days on the writ’s status until fully satisfied, constituting simple neglect of duty. Furthermore, he violated Canon III, Section 1(a)(i) of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel by failing to disclose and inhibit himself from a case where the accused was his brother, creating a conflict of interest. Considering this was his second offense for simple neglect of duty, and applying Section 55, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases which mandates imposing the penalty for the most serious offense, the Court imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.