AM P 07 2398; (February, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-07-2398. February 13, 2008. IRENEO GERONCA, Complainant, vs. VINCENT HORACE V. MAGALONA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ireneo Geronca, a judgment obligee in a civil case, alleged that respondent Sheriff Vincent Horace V. Magalona asked for and received P10,000 to implement a writ of execution in Dumaguete City. The complainant later discovered the writ was served near the Bacolod City Hall of Justice. Respondent levied on dilapidated motorcycles instead of available new ones. After the auction, respondent refused to deliver the P7,000 proceeds to the complainant and withheld the keys to motorcycles the complainant had purchased.
In his defense, respondent claimed the P10,000 was voluntarily given and that he could not levy on the new motorcycles as they were not registered to the judgment obligor. The investigating judge found respondent’s comment consisted of vague denials, noting he did not deny receiving the money or failing to deliver the auction proceeds.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Magalona is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dereliction of duty, grave misconduct, and dishonesty, and dismissed him from service. The legal logic is anchored on the violation of specific rules and ethical standards governing sheriffs. Rule 141, Section 9 of the Rules of Court mandates a strict procedure for sheriffs’ expenses: they must make an estimate, obtain court approval, and liquidate the amount. Respondent utterly disregarded this procedure by directly soliciting and receiving P10,000 from the complainant without court approval and by failing to liquidate.
His actions constituted grave misconduct, defined as intentional wrongdoing with elements of corruption or flagrant disregard of rules. The false representation about implementing the writ in Dumaguete to collect money, the pocketing of the auction proceeds, and the withholding of the motorcycle keys demonstrated corruption and a clear intent to violate the law. Dishonesty was manifest in his deceitful collection and failure to account for funds. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, the most serious charge (grave misconduct) carries the penalty of dismissal, which is imposed here. The Court condemned such extortionate practices, emphasizing the imperative for court personnel to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.