SECOND DIVISION
[A. M. No.
P-98-1270. November 27, 2000]
ANTONIO ABANIL, complainant,
vs. ABEL FRANCISCO B. RAMOS, JR., respondent.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before us is an administrative
complaint for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of official functions filed by Antonio Abanil against Abel Francisco
B. Ramos, Jr., Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
Iriga City.
The antecedent
facts of this case are as follows:
On August 3,
1995, complainant, while in the house of Domingo Hosana, Barangay Chairman of
Santiago Young, Nabua, Camarines Sur, executed a promissory note to pay Luis
Oliva on November 30, 1995, the amount of seventy-nine thousand pesos
(P79,000.00) as part of the amicable settlement purportedly agreed upon by the
complainant and Oliva. Respondent signed as a witness in the said execution of
the promissory note.[1]
Early in 1996,
Oliva filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Nabua-Bato,
Camarines Sur, an action, docketed as Barangay Case No. 1-96, against
complainant for the execution of the amicable settlement. On July 5, 1996, the MCTC issued a writ of
execution. Thereafter, respondent,
pursuant to the said writ, levied on the jeepney of the complainant and
scheduled the same for auction sale on August 5, 1996.
On August 5,
1996, complainant, in his effort to stop the scheduled auction sale, filed a
petition for injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction docketed as
Civil Case No. IR-2827 with the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City. Executive Judge Reno Gonzales issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining respondent from implementing the auction
sale of said jeepney.
On the same
date, complainant filed with the MCTC a motion to set aside the writ of
execution already issued. The MCTC
ordered respondent to cease and desist from proceeding with the auction sale.
On August 6,
1996, Oliva, filed an opposition to the motion filed by complainant in Barangay
Case No. 1-96 and to the petition for injunction docketed in Civil Case No.
IR-2827. The copies of the opposition
was received by Atty. Julito Sernal, counsel of the complainant on August 7,
1996.
On November 14,
1996, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received the instant
complaint against respondent alleging that respondent was with Oliva, Domingo
Hosana and two others in Hosana’s house during working hours on August 3, 1995
in a drinking spree. There, using
threats and intimidation, respondent made complainant sign the aforecited
promissory note. Complainant further
avers that on August 7, 1996, respondent showing his partiality and personal
interest, and as if acting as special sheriff, personally served upon Atty.
Julito M. Sernal, complainant’s counsel in Barangay Case No. 1-96 and Civil
Case No. IR-2827, copies of Oliva’s pleadings.[2]
In his Comment,
respondent denied the allegations of the complainant contending that although
it was true that he was at the residence of Barangay Chairman Hosana during the
confrontation between the complainant and Oliva, who is his “barriomate,” it
was nevertheless already past 5:00 o’clock P.M.. He further explained that he went there only upon the request of
Oliva and that he did not know that Oliva was about to confront the complainant
in the said house. Respondent went on
to narrate that when he found out that the meeting was a conciliation
proceeding in the barangay level, he distanced himself from the parties and
signed as witness in the alleged amicable settlement only because he was
requested by Hosana.
Respondent also
denied showing any partiality and personal interest in Barangay Case No.
1-96. According to him, even if it were
true that he did in fact serve the copies of the pleadings filed by Oliva’s
counsel to the complainant’s counsel, such valid service was because as the
sheriff, he was enjoined from further proceeding with the auction sale of the
personal property.
Complainant in
his Reply insists that respondent was at Hosana’s place even before 5:00
P.M.. He attached the affidavit of one
Jose Rull who allegedly saw and heard the incident at Hosana’s residence.
In its Report
dated December 12, 1997, OCA found that the evidence submitted by complainant
failed to establish the participation of respondent in the drinking spree
during office hours and in conspiring to compel the complainant to sign the
aforecited promissory note with threat and intimidation. It also did not give credence to the charges
of giving a party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of official functions.
However, the OCA commented that nonetheless, respondent compromised
himself and the court when he signed as a witness. Respondent should have inhibited himself since he was a party in
the execution of the settlement agreement, aside from being a barriomate of
respondent.
The OCA found
respondent sheriff guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest
of the service and recommended suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day
pursuant to Section 22 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292.
We find the
above findings and conclusions of the OCA supported by evidence. However, we are unable to agree with the
recommendation that respondent be suspended from the service for just one month
and one day as the same is not in accord with applicable administrative rules.
Under the Personnel Manual of the Supreme Court, conduct grossly prejudicial to
the best interest of the service constitutes violation of the Civil Service
Rules. Being a grave offense, a public employee found guilty of such offense
shall be meted the penalty of, in case of first infraction, suspension for six
(6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Commission of the same act for the
second time is punishable by dismissal from the service.[3] Thus, we have no recourse but to
impose the proper penalty as provided by law.
It must be borne
in mind that the conduct required of court personnel must be beyond reproach
and must always be free from suspicion that may taint the judiciary. Respondent, by doing what he did, failed to
live up to this standard. He conducted himself in a manner grossly prejudicial
to the best interest of the service.[4]
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby declared
GUILTY of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service and
SUSPENDED from the service for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with
a warning that the commission of similar or graver offenses in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.
This decision
shall take effect immediately upon receipt by respondent of a copy thereof.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo
(Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.