A.M. No. P-1337. January 22, 1980. ANTONIO B. MANZANO, complainant, vs. MARIO P. SAUR, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Cotabato City, respondent.
FACTS

Atty. Antonio B. Manzano filed a verified complaint against Deputy Provincial Sheriff Mario P. Saur for malversation and malfeasance. The complainant, as counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case, entrusted a writ of execution to the respondent in June 1972 to collect a judgment sum from defendant Pablo Cua. An arrangement was made for Cua to pay monthly installments through the sheriff. While Saur initially remitted some collections, he later informed the complainant he was relieved from the task. In April 1976, the complainant discovered that Saur had secretly collected P3,300.00 from Cua between April 1975 and March 1976 but failed to remit the amount.
Respondent Saur, in his answer, admitted the material allegations of the complaint. He conceded collecting the P3,300.00 and not delivering it to the complainant. He offered to refund the money through salary deductions, citing financial inability as his reason for the delay. His defense essentially confirmed the misappropriation but pleaded for leniency and the dismissal of the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Mario P. Saur is administratively liable for his actions, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the charge of serious misconduct and malfeasance in office sufficiently established. The Court resolved the case based on the facts of record, dispensing with a formal investigation as the respondent’s own admissions in his answer provided conclusive evidence. By admitting he collected money by virtue of his official duty and failed to remit it, converting it for his own use, Saur committed a grave breach of trust.
The legal logic is clear: a sheriff is a court officer tasked with a fiduciary duty over funds collected pursuant to court processes. Such funds are considered in legis custodia (in legal custody). Misappropriation constitutes gross misconduct, undermining the integrity of the judicial process. The Court cited precedents like Abdulwahid v. Reyes, where a sheriff was dismissed for similar misappropriation, emphasizing that such acts erode public confidence in the administration of justice. The offer of restitution does not mitigate the offense, as the breach of trust is complete upon conversion.
Consequently, the Court ordered respondent Saur’s DISMISSAL from service, with prejudice to reemployment and without prejudice to any criminal action. The penalty is justified by the need to preserve the judiciary’s integrity and deter similar misconduct by court personnel.