A.M. No. P-160. May 31, 1974. ATTY. JOSE F. S. BENGZON, JR., complainant, vs. AGAPITO RAMOS, Deputy Sheriff, Office of the Provincial Sheriff, Pasig, Rizal, respondent.
FACTS:

Respondent Deputy Sheriff Agapito Ramos implemented a writ of preliminary attachment in a Davao case, seizing an Impala car on April 23, 1973. The attachment was lifted by court order dated April 24, 1973, which complainant personally delivered to Ramos on April 30, 1973. Ramos released the car that same day. However, regarding the garnishment aspects of the same writ, Ramos prepared notices to lift the garnishment on May 10, 1973, but these were only turned over to the mailing clerk and sent by ordinary mail on July 6, 1973, and even then, only to four out of the eight originally garnished institutions.
Furthermore, while the car was under his official custody, it was documented as being parked at a public parking lot on April 23 and 24, 1973. In his answer to the complaint, Ramos initially admitted using the car, claiming it was for maintenance to preserve its condition. During the formal investigation, however, he changed his story, alleging he had placed the car in the custody of a co-employee who was the one who used it.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Agapito Ramos is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and for the unauthorized use of property under custodia legis.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The legal logic is grounded on the fundamental duties of a sheriff as an officer of the court. First, on the charge of neglect, the Court emphasized the duty of promptness and diligence. The inordinate delay of over two months in serving the notices to lift the garnishment, after having promptly served the original notices of garnishment personally, constituted gross inefficiency. This foot-dragging prejudiced the parties involved and showed a clear neglect of official duty.
Second, on the charge of unauthorized use, the Court ruled that the use of an attached vehicle for personal errands, as evidenced by its parking in a public lot, is strictly prohibited. Property under custodia legis is held for safekeeping by the court through its officers, and any personal use, regardless of the purported reason of “maintenance,” borders on misappropriation. Ramos’s shifting defenses—from admission of use for upkeep to blaming a co-employee—only weakened his credibility and did not excuse the violation. The Court condemned such acts as intolerable for a public trustee.
Considering his 27 years of unblemished service as a mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed a penalty of three months suspension without pay, with a stern warning. The ruling underscores that long service does not immunize an officer from penalty but may only mitigate the sanction for otherwise sanctionable misconduct.