G.R. No. A.M. No. P-99-1346. June 20, 2001.
Restituto L. Castro, complainant, vs. Carlos Bague, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 1, Tagbilaran City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Restituto L. Castro was the highest bidder in a foreclosure sale conducted by respondent Sheriff Carlos Bague on December 27, 1994. The certificate of sale was registered on December 28, 1994. On June 5, 1995, Paul Mendoza, son of the deceased mortgagor, through an attorney-in-fact, served a notice of redemption and deposited the redemption price. Complainant filed an opposition to the redemption. On December 22, 1995, respondent issued a “resolution” granting the redemption and ordering the issuance of a certificate of redemption to Paul Mendoza’s attorney-in-fact, and enjoining complainant to accept the redemption money. Complainant received a copy of this resolution on January 24, 1996. Complainant filed two separate complaints against respondent: one for abuse of official functions, gross ignorance of duties, and manifest partiality; and another for falsification of public document. The cases were consolidated. The Investigating Judge found respondent failed to observe prescribed conduct and recommended a reprimand for the first charge but dismissed the falsification charge for insufficient evidence. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted the factual findings but found respondent guilty of usurpation of judicial function for issuing the resolution, recommending a six-month suspension.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Carlos Bague is administratively liable for: (1) abuse of official functions, gross ignorance of duties, and manifest partiality (usurpation of judicial function) for issuing the December 22, 1995 resolution; and (2) falsification of public document.

RULING

The Court found respondent GUILTY of abuse of official functions and manifest partiality. The act of issuing a “resolution” to resolve the opposition to the redemption constituted a usurpation of judicial function, as the determination of the validity of the redemption and the parties’ rights is a judicial function that belongs to a judge, not a sheriff. The sheriff’s duty is merely ministerial in such matters. The Court rejected respondent’s defense that he acted upon advice of the Clerk of Court, stating judicial power is strictly personal to a judge and cannot be delegated. The Court ordered respondent suspended for six (6) months without pay, with a warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely. The complaint for falsification of a public document was DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.