AM P 94 1032; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-94-1032. January 18, 1996
FELICIDAD V. MORALES, petitioner, vs. JULIO G. TARONGOY, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, PAGADIAN CITY, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Felicidad V. Morales charged Deputy Sheriff Julio G. Tarongoy with Grave Misconduct and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charges stemmed from the execution of a final NLRC judgment in her favor. Morales alleged that upon personally delivering the alias writ of execution to Pagadian City, respondent Sheriff demanded and received P15,000.00 as a fee for implementing the writ. Respondent then levied two parcels of real property owned by the judgment debtor.
Complainant later discovered the levied properties were heavily mortgaged to banks, rendering the levy potentially useless for satisfying the money judgment of only P190,254.00. She questioned why respondent did not instead levy on the debtor’s eleven other unencumbered properties. The Court required respondent to comment on the complaint through two separate resolutions. Despite proof of receipt, respondent Sheriff utterly failed to comply with or acknowledge these Court directives.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Julio G. Tarongoy is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct and is dismissed from service. The legal logic proceeds from two primary grounds. First, respondent’s unexplained failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders to comment constitutes gross insubordination and disrespect for judicial authority. This failure is not merely procedural; it is deemed an admission of the charges and demonstrates a character unfit for public office. Second, the substantive acts complained of establish misconduct. Demanding and receiving a P15,000.00 fee from the complainant without court approval was irregular. More critically, levying properties with massive mortgage encumbrances far exceeding the judgment debt, while ignoring available unencumbered assets, showed a lack of prudence and due diligence in the performance of a ministerial duty. This act prejudiced the complainant’s chance to collect the judgment. Considering his prior record of negligence and the present grave infractions, the penalty of dismissal is justified to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.