Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > December 1981 Decisions > A.M. No. P-2529 December 19, 1981 - VICENTE TO v. ALFREDO DISTOR:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-2529. December 19, 1981.]

VICENTE TO, Complainant, v. ALFREDO DISTOR, Deputy Sheriff of Manila, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


A Chocolate Vendo Machine which was levied upon by respondent-sheriff and sold to the complainant at public auction was found missing. Complainant reported the matter to the executive judge. Respondent admitted that the article was "lost" while in the custody of persons appointed by him to guard it. Before the executive judge could hear the case, however, the complainant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that he and the respondent had already settled the case amicably. This, notwithstanding, the executive judge recommended that respondent be ordered to pay a fine equivalent to a month’s salary for his negligence.

The Supreme Court held that the loss of the Vendo Machine while in the custody of respondent sheriff constitutes a serious breach of his legal duty to safeguard the properties that come to his possession in the performance of his duties, and ordered his suspension from office for a period of three (3) months without pay, which shall not be charged to his leave credits, with a stern warning that commission of irregularities in the performance of his duties in the future will be dealt with more severely.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; COURT PERSONNEL; SHERIFFS; OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE DUTIES WITH DUE CARE AND UTMOST DILIGENCE. — It is well to remind that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are officers of the court, and considered agents of the law. They form an integral part of the administration of justice because they are called upon to serve court writs, execute ail processes, and carry into effect the orders of the court. As such, they should discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A SHERIFF; GROSS NEGLIGENCE; PENALTY. — The lost of the Vendo Machine while in the custody of respondent sheriff constitutes a serious breach of his legal duty to safeguard the properties that come to his possession in the performance of his official duties. The transgression amounts to gross negligence which, not only vitiated the integrity of the court personnel and prejudices the parties, but more importantly, undermined the faith of the people in the effectiveness of the administration of justice. Respondent should be suspended from office for a period of three (3) months without pay, which shall not be charged to his leave credits, with a stern warning that commission of irregularities in the performance of his duties in the future will be dealt with more severely.


R E S O L U T I O N


GUERRERO, J.:


This administrative complaint was filed due to the disappearance of one (1) Chocolate Vendo Machine which was levied upon by respondent deputy Sheriff Alfredo Distor on March 2, 1981. The Chocolate Vendo Machine was one of the 12 items advertised for sale on March 11, 1981 in front of the City Court of Manila.

After the sale, complainant Mr. Vicente To, the buyer in the auction sale, discovered that the Chocolate Vendo Machine was missing. He reported the matter to Executive Judge Jose C. Colayco who, in turn, issued a memorandum order on April 9, 1981 to respondent Distor directing him to explain the alleged loss of the vendo machine.

Respondent admitted that the missing article was "lost" while in the custody of two (2) persons named Primo de Luna and Enrique Villavivo, appointed by him to guard it.

Before a hearing could be conducted for the reception of evidence, complainant Vicente To, on September 16, 1981, submitted to Executive Judge Colayco a motion to dismiss alleging that "complainant and respondent have settled this case amicably and, therefore, no longer interested to prosecute the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

The motion to dismiss, notwithstanding, Judge Colayco submitted the following recommendation: "It is clear that the respondent was guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties. His stubborn refusal to pay the value of the lost article shows lack of understanding of his responsibility as a public servant, which requires correction. It is respectfully recommended that the respondent be made to pay a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, with a stern warning that the commission of irregularities in the performance of his duties in the future will be dealt with more severely."cralaw virtua1aw library

While We agree that respondent was guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties, We do not subscribe to the recommended penalty of one month salary fine in view of the degree of negligence committed by the Respondent.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

It is well to remind that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are officers of the court, and considered agents of the law. They form an integral part of the administration of justice because they are called upon to serve court writs, execute all processes, and carry into effect the orders of the court. As such, they should discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. This requisite, We find, is wanting in the actuation of the respondent in the case at bar. He failed to comply with the standard norm and demands becoming of a court officer. The loss of the Vendo Machine while in the custody of respondent Distor constitutes a serious breach of his legal duty to safeguard the properties that come to his possession in the performance of his official duties.

The transgression amounts to gross negligence which, not only vitiated the integrity of the court personnel and prejudiced the parties, but more importantly, undermined the faith of the people in the effectiveness of the administration of justice.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby found guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties and is ordered suspended from office for a period of three (3) months without pay effective upon notice, which shall not be charged to his leave credits, with a stern warning that commission of irregularities in the performance of his duties in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 58345 December 9, 1981 - FBA AIRCRAFT v. SEGUNDO ZOSA

  • A.M. No. 2162-MJ December 14, 1981 - AGUILAR INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE v. ANASTACIO ZAMUCO

  • A.M. No. P-2266-A December 14, 1981 - LORENZA M. DE LABACO v. NORBERTO O. PARALE

  • A.M. No. P-2443 December 14, 1981 - R.M. SALAZAR JR. CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. RODOLFO M. ESPINELI

  • G.R. No. L-27810 December 14, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28102 December 14, 1981 - ELIAS L. PENACO v. ZOILO H. RUAYA

  • G.R. No. L-30621 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ORPILLA

  • G.R. No. L-31403 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOBITO MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-31694 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO D. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. L-31871 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO T. MEDRANA

  • G.R. No. L-32944 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO C. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-33609 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS G. RUIZ

  • G.R. No. L-36554 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO AGUEL

  • G.R. Nos. L-41493 & L-41494 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. L-42900 December 14, 1981 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. GUARDSON LOOD

  • G.R. No. L-46371 December 14, 1981 - AMPARO SANTOS v. FELISA DE LA FUENTE SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-48605 December 14, 1981 - DOMNA N. VILLAVERT v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-51539 December 14, 1981 - SUMMIT GUARANTY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52196 December 14, 1981 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-53406 December 14, 1981 - NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-54335 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL V. FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-56314 December 14, 1981 - ANITA M. SEARES v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-57205 December 14, 1981 - ADORACION F. VDA. DE DANAN v. FELIPE V. BUENCAMINO

  • G.R. No. 56704 December 18, 1981 - PETROPHIL CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE

  • A.M. No. 543-MC December 19, 1981 - ANGELA L. DAILAY-PAPA v. BEN ALMORA

  • A.M. No. 2026 December 19, 1981 - NENITA DE VERA SUROZA v. REYNALDO P. HONRADO

  • A.M. No. P-2529 December 19, 1981 - VICENTE TO v. ALFREDO DISTOR

  • G.R. No. L-31429 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSCOE G. DABAN

  • G.R. No. L-36315 December 19, 1981 - JOSE W. DIOKNO v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. Nos. L-39121 & L-39122 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO PARCON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48907 & 49035 December 19, 1981 - SEVERINO TAJONERA v. BERNANDO LAMAROZA

  • G.R. No. 50180 December 19, 1981 - FRANCISCA RICO REYES v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-55273-83 December 19, 1981 - GAUDENCIO RAYO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN

  • G.R. No. 55954 December 19, 1981 - FERMIN CASOCOT v. CIPRIANO V. VAMENTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-56443 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.C. No. 924 December 28, 1981 - RENATO M. CORONADO v. ANGEL S. HUERTAS

  • A.M. No. 1567-MJ December 28, 1981 - DANILO STA. MARIA v. ANASTACIO T. ZAMUCO

  • G.R. No. L-26540 December 28, 1981 - MUTUAL PAPER INC. v. EASTERN SCOTT PAPER COMPANY