True sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement

True sheriffs must comply with their mandated

This preview shows page 29 - 31 out of 63 pages.

True, sheriffs must comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writs promptly and expeditiously, but equally true is the principle that sheriffs by the nature of their functions must at all times conduct themselves with propriety and decorum and act above suspicion. There must be no room for anyone to conjecture that sheriffs and deputy sheriffs as officers of the court have conspired with any of the parties to a case to obtain a favorable judgment or immediate execution. The sheriff is at the front line as representative of the judiciary and by his act he may build or destroy the institution. 39 However, as to the charge of graft and corruption, it must be stressed that the same is criminal in nature, thus, the resolution thereof cannot be threshed out in the instant administrative proceeding. We also take note that there is a pending criminal case for carnapping against Andres; 40 hence, with more reason that we cannot rule on the allegation of graft and corruption as it may preempt the court in its resolution of the said case. We come to the matter of penalties. The imposable penalty for gross neglect of duty is dismissal. While the penalty imposable for grave abuse of authority (oppression) is suspension for six (6) months one (1) day to one (1) year. 41 Section 55, Rule IV, of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that if the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. In the instant case, the penalty for the more serious offense which is dismissal should be imposed on Andres. However, following Sections 53 42 and 54, 43 Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, we have to consider that Andres is a first-time offender; hence, a lighter penalty than dismissal from the service would suffice. Consequently, instead of imposing the penalty of dismissal, the penalty of suspension from office for one (1) year without pay is proper for gross neglect of duty, and another six (6) months should be added for the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of authority (oppression). WHEREFORE, the Court finds Abe C. Andres, Sheriff IV, RTC of Davao City, Branch 16, GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority (oppression) and is SUSPENDED for one (1) year and six (6) months without pay. He is also hereby WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future shall be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED .
Image of page 29
SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC G.R. No. 182963 June 3, 2013 PERALTA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the April 30, 2007 Decision 1 and May 19, 2008 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 86021, which affirmed the August 11, 2005 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Manila City.
Image of page 30
Image of page 31

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture