AM 1472; (October, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-1472 and A.M. No. P-1649. October 30, 1981. MARCIAL O.T. BALGOS and WALTER CARANTES, complainants, vs. CONSTANCIO VELASCO, Deputy Sheriff, Baguio City, respondent.
FACTS
These consolidated administrative cases arose from the enforcement of a 1976 NLRC order of execution for reinstatement and back wages against Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. In A.M. No. P-1472, the company charged respondent Deputy Sheriff Constancio Velasco with grave misconduct for allegedly exceeding the writ’s terms by computing and garnishing amounts for emergency allowances, leave pay, and 13th-month pay, not just back wages. Velasco garnished P35,000 from the company’s bank account.
In A.M. No. P-1649, Atty. Walter Carantes, counsel for the laborers, alleged that from the garnished P35,000, Velasco delivered only P29,000, clandestinely withholding P5,000. Velasco secured this amount by falsely executing an affidavit of loss for the savings passbook—which was actually in the custody of the Ex-Officio Sheriff—to obtain a new passbook and withdraw the money.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Constancio Velasco is administratively liable for misconduct in the performance of his duties in these two cases.
RULING
Yes, respondent Velasco is administratively liable and was dismissed from service. The Court found him guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service. In A.M. No. P-1472, the investigating judge found Velasco’s inclusion of allowances and other benefits in his computation was not a malicious overreach but an error made in good faith while relying on computations from the laborers’ counsel. However, this error was compounded by his failure to follow proper procedure by not first securing the judgment obligor’s computation as he had promised the bank, demonstrating negligence.
The core of his malfeasance was established in A.M. No. P-1649. The evidence conclusively showed that Velasco misappropriated the P5,000 held in trust. His claim of retaining it for fees with consent was belied by the proven false affidavit of loss. The passbook trail revealed he treated the account as his personal fund, making unexplained deposits and withdrawals. By the time Atty. Carantes demanded the money, only a minimal balance remained. Velasco’s actions constituted dishonesty and a blatant breach of the high degree of integrity and trust required of a sheriff. A sheriff is a court officer charged with safeguarding and properly delivering funds collected by virtue of a writ; converting such funds for personal use is a most serious offense. The Court upheld the recommendation for dismissal with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.