True, sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writspromptly and expeditiously, but equally true is the principle that sheriffs by the nature oftheir functions must at all times conduct themselves with propriety and decorum andact above suspicion. There must be no room for anyone to conjecture that sheriffs anddeputy sheriffs as officers of the court have conspired with any of the parties to a caseto obtain a favorable judgment or immediate execution. The sheriff is at the front line asrepresentative of the judiciary and by his act he may build or destroy the institution.39However, as to the charge of graft and corruption, it must be stressed that the same iscriminal in nature, thus, the resolution thereof cannot be threshed out in the instantadministrative proceeding. We also take note that there is a pending criminal case forcarnapping against Andres;40hence, with more reason that we cannot rule on theallegation of graft and corruption as it may preempt the court in its resolution of the saidcase.We come to the matter of penalties. The imposable penalty for gross neglect of duty isdismissal. While the penalty imposable for grave abuse of authority (oppression) issuspension for six (6) months one (1) day to one (1) year.41Section 55, Rule IV, of theUniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that if therespondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposedshould be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest shall beconsidered as aggravating circumstances.In the instant case, the penalty for the more serious offense which is dismissal shouldbe imposed on Andres. However, following Sections 5342and 54,43Rule IV of theUniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, we have to consider thatAndres is a first-time offender; hence, a lighter penalty than dismissal from the servicewould suffice. Consequently, instead of imposing the penalty of dismissal, the penaltyof suspension from office for one (1) year without pay is proper for gross neglect ofduty, and another six (6) months should be added for the aggravating circumstance ofgrave abuse of authority (oppression).WHEREFORE,the Court finds Abe C. Andres, Sheriff IV, RTC of Davao City, Branch16, GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority (oppression) andis SUSPENDEDfor one (1) year and six (6) months without pay. He is alsohereby WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future shall bedealt with more severely.SO ORDERED.
SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK,INCG.R. No. 182963June 3, 2013PERALTA,J.:This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the April 30, 2007 Decision1and May19, 2008 Resolution2of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 86021, which affirmedthe August 11, 2005 Decision3of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Manila City.