A.M. No. P-89-281. March 29, 1990. SERVILLANO MAMARIL, complainant, vs. JUAN CONTACTO, JR. and JOSE BLANCA, Deputy Sheriffs of Albay, Legaspi City, respondents.
FACTS:

Complainant Servillano Mamaril, the Finance Officer and Officer-in-Charge of the Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. II (ALECO II), charged Deputy Sheriffs Juan Contacto, Jr. and Jose Blanca with abusive acts and conduct unbecoming of public officers. The charges stemmed from the respondents’ implementation of a writ of attachment in Civil Case No. 8018 on December 2, 1988. Upon serving the writ at the ALECO II office, respondent Contacto, Jr. asked complainant for P600 “para sa mga bata” (for the boys), which was refused. The sheriffs later levied upon two motor vehicles and, instead of depositing them in a bonded warehouse or sheriff’s storage as required, stored them in the yard of a private individual near Contacto, Jr.’s residence. One of these vehicles was later seen being used to transport merchandise.
On December 5, 1988, the respondents returned to levy office equipment. During this visit, respondent Blanca, angered by the disconnection of his personal electric service for unpaid bills dating back to 1986, confronted Mamaril using vulgar and threatening language. Testimony also indicated that the respondents were under the influence of liquor during the enforcement of the writ.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Deputy Sheriffs Juan Contacto, Jr. and Jose Blanca are administratively liable for their conduct in implementing the writ of attachment.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court found respondent Juan Contacto, Jr. guilty of grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and dishonesty. His act of soliciting money from the complainant constituted gross misconduct and dishonesty. Furthermore, his failure to deposit the attached vehicles in a bonded warehouse or sheriff’s storage, as mandated by Section 7, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, and instead placing them in a private yard where one was subsequently misused, constituted a serious breach of duty and abuse of authority. This demonstrated a lack of integrity and care for court property.
Respondent Jose Blanca was found guilty of abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a public officer. His use of vulgar and threatening language against the complainant, motivated by a personal grievance over his disconnected electricity, was a flagrant display of arrogance and a failure to maintain the decorum and civility required of court personnel. The Court rejected his claim that the disconnection was retaliatory, noting it was justified by his longstanding unpaid bills. The finding that both respondents were under the influence of liquor during official duties, while not shown to be habitual, further tarnished the judiciary’s image and warranted censure.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Juan Contacto, Jr. from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government entity. Jose Blanca was imposed a FINE equivalent to one month’s salary with a stern warning.