AM P 90 412; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-90-412; March 11, 1991
MARISOL C. HIPOLITO, complainant, vs. ELMER R. MERGAS, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Marisol C. Hipolito, an applicant for a small-scale mining permit, charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Elmer R. Mergas with grave misconduct. The complaint stemmed from respondent’s actions in September 1989, when he agreed to assist Hipolito with her permit application with the Bureau of Mines, an undertaking entirely outside his official duties as a sheriff. Over several months, respondent received from Hipolito the total sum of P14,200.00, which he claimed was spent for survey fees, filing fees, verification, and travel expenses related to the application. The application was ultimately not approved. Hipolito filed a criminal complaint for estafa, which was dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor for lack of evidence of deceit or abuse of confidence. However, the administrative complaint for misconduct proceeded.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Elmer R. Mergas is administratively liable for his actions in assisting a private individual with a mining permit application for a fee.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge, which established that respondent engaged in “moonlighting” by devoting substantial time and effort to a private undertaking unrelated to his judicial functions, presumably even during office hours. While the criminal case for estafa was dismissed, such absolution does not preclude administrative liability. The Court emphasized that a sheriff, as an officer of the court, must devote full attention to his official duties and maintain the highest standards of public service. By engaging in this private business venture, respondent failed to observe the degree of dedication and integrity required of his position. His actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as they detracted from the fair and just administration of justice and violated the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. Consequently, the Court found respondent guilty of serious misconduct and imposed a penalty of suspension from office for six (6) months without pay.