G.R. No. A.M. No. P-90-474 June 19, 1991
Crispino M. De Castro, complainant, vs. Alberto H. Santos, in his capacity as Special Sheriff Designate, Branch 156, RTC Pasig, Metro Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Crispino M. De Castro, counsel for the defendant in a replevin case, filed an administrative complaint against Special Sheriff Alberto H. Santos for grave misconduct, gross negligence, and disobedience to court orders. The case stemmed from the execution of a writ of replevin for a Caterpillar bulldozer. After the defendant posted a counter-bond, the court ordered the bulldozer’s return. However, the property, which respondent had deposited at the Pasig Capitol Motorpool Compound, was released by the Officer-in-Charge, Nunilo Diaz, to the plaintiff instead of the defendant, preventing the implementation of the court order.
Respondent denied the charges, claiming he chose the motorpool as a secure location, cautioned Diaz to release the property only upon court order, and attributed the loss solely to Diaz’s unauthorized release. An investigation by the Executive Judge of Pasig RTC revealed that respondent, when depositing the bulldozer, led Diaz to believe the plaintiff was the owner and that the stay was temporary, for only five days. Respondent failed to provide Diaz with copies of the pertinent court orders, never obtained a formal receipt for the property, and did not visit or check on the bulldozer after its deposit.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Special Sheriff Alberto H. Santos is administratively liable for gross negligence in the performance of his duties.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross negligence. The Supreme Court emphasized that all court personnel must act with propriety, decorum, and above suspicion. As a sheriff, respondent had a clear duty to safely keep the property in his custody pending further court orders. His actions constituted a flagrant breach of this duty. He misrepresented the plaintiff’s interest to the motorpool officer, creating the impression of a short, private storage arrangement. He failed to formalize the deposit with a receipt, neglected to furnish the custodian with the governing court documents, and made no effort to monitor the property’s security. This demonstrated a lack of the utmost care and diligence required, especially for an officer in a special capacity. The Court found that these omissions directly facilitated the unauthorized release of the property. Consequently, the charge of gross negligence was substantiated, while the other charges for grave misconduct and disobedience were dismissed. Respondent was suspended from office for five months without pay and restricted from future assignments as a Special Sheriff.