G.R. No. A.M. No. P-1881 September 25, 1980
ALFONSO V. AGCAOILI, complainant, vs. ROUMEL M. REYES, Deputy Sheriff of Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Alfonso V. Agcaoili, counsel for First National City Bank, alleged that respondent Deputy Sheriff Roumel M. Reyes approached him in January 1976. Respondent, who had levied on machinery of Chemplex (Phils.), Inc., in a Manila case for a claim of about P100,000, stated the attached properties were worth at least P1.2 million. Respondent offered to reveal the location of these properties for a consideration of P20,000, suggesting the Bank could then pay off the first creditor to become the primary attaching party. When Agcaoili countered with a proposal for reasonable compensation based on the value secured, Reyes insisted on the P20,000 commitment, threatening otherwise to release the excess properties, which would prejudice the Bank’s interests. This conversation was prompted by the Bank’s separate Rizal case where it held unenforced writs of attachment against the same debtor.
The matter came to light during a hearing on a third-party claim. Acting on a manifestation from Agcaoili’s associate, the presiding judge ordered Agcaoili to file a sworn comment. Respondent, in his unsworn Answer, denied demanding money, claiming it was Agcaoili who offered a reward which he refused. He asserted he only suggested a cash deposit by the Bank with the court. The case was referred for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff is administratively liable for serious misconduct in office for demanding money in exchange for information obtained in his official capacity.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of serious malfeasance warranting dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Judge and the Court Administrator, giving greater credence to complainant’s detailed, sworn affidavit over respondent’s unsworn denials. The Court found Agcaoili’s testimony credible, noting he had no ill motive as he acted in compliance with a court order. Crucially, respondent’s persistent refusal to disclose the property’s location during proceedings contradicted his claim of willingness to cooperate, revealing the insincerity of his defense.
The legal logic centers on the breach of a public officer’s fiduciary duty. A sheriff is an officer of the court, not an agent of any party. By attempting to monetize confidential information acquired solely through his official functions—effectively demanding an “informer’s fee”—respondent violated the rigid standards of integrity and ethical conduct required of judicial personnel. Such conduct constitutes a corrupt practice that exploits his office for personal gain, betraying the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust. It erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. Consequently, the Court ordered respondent’s dismissal with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from future government service.