AM P 98 1270; (November, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-98-1270. November 27, 2000. ANTONIO ABANIL, complainant, vs. ABEL FRANCISCO B. RAMOS, JR., respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Antonio Abanil filed an administrative complaint against respondent Abel Francisco B. Ramos, Jr., a Sheriff IV, for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the service, and giving unwarranted benefits. The complaint stemmed from two incidents. First, on August 3, 1995, respondent was present at the house of a Barangay Chairman where Abanil, allegedly under threat and intimidation, executed a promissory note in favor of Luis Oliva as part of an amicable settlement. Respondent signed the promissory note as a witness. Second, on August 7, 1996, after Oliva secured a writ of execution from the MCTC to enforce the settlement and respondent levied on Abanil’s jeepney, respondent personally served copies of Oliva’s pleadings upon Abanil’s counsel. Abanil alleged this showed partiality, as respondent was acting like a “special sheriff” for Oliva, who was his “barriomate.”
Respondent denied the allegations. He claimed he was at the barangay meeting past office hours upon Oliva’s request, unaware it was a conciliation, and only signed as a witness when asked by the Barangay Chairman. Regarding the service of pleadings, he argued that as the sheriff enjoined from proceeding with the auction, it was part of his duty to effect service.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Abel Francisco B. Ramos, Jr. is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the evidence insufficient to prove respondent’s participation in a drinking spree, conspiracy, or use of intimidation regarding the promissory note, or that he gave unwarranted benefits. However, the OCA correctly found that respondent compromised himself and the court by signing as a witness to the amicable settlement between Oliva and Abanil. As a sheriff and officer of the court, he must avoid any appearance of impropriety. By involving himself in the settlement, especially with a “barriomate,” he created a situation that could cast doubt on his impartiality in the subsequent execution proceedings. This act fell short of the high standard of integrity and propriety required of court personnel, whose conduct must be beyond reproach to preserve public trust in the judiciary.
The Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. While the OCA recommended a one-month-and-one-day suspension, the Supreme Court Personnel Manual classifies conduct grossly prejudicial to the service as a grave offense. For a first infraction, the prescribed penalty is suspension for six months and one day to one year. Therefore, the Court imposed a suspension of six months and one day without pay, with a stern warning against future offenses. The decision is immediately executory.