G.R. No. P-96-1185. June 26, 2000
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sheriff IV Julius G. Cabe, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar

FACTS

Unidentified persons forcibly opened a steel safe in the office of Judge Sibanah E. Usman of RTC Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar, on February 20 or 21, 1993. The stolen items included four .38 caliber revolvers (paltik) and five empty shells from an M-16 Armalite rifle, all held as evidence in terminated or pending criminal cases. The loss was discovered and reported by the court interpreter and custodian, Rodolfo Ableza.
An administrative complaint was filed against Sheriff IV Julius G. Cabe, who was the Officer-in-Charge of the branch office at the time. The complaint centered on his alleged neglect of duty for failing to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 2 dated May 13, 1983. This circular mandates the turnover of firearms used as evidence to the nearest Constabulary Command after the termination of the relevant cases. Investigation revealed that the criminal cases involving the stolen revolvers had been dismissed or terminated years prior to the theft, yet the firearms remained in the court’s custody instead of being turned over to the proper authorities.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff IV Julius G. Cabe is administratively liable for neglect of duty and inefficiency for failing to safeguard court exhibits and for not complying with the directive to turn over evidence firearms after the termination of cases.

RULING

Yes, Sheriff Julius G. Cabe is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of simple neglect of duty. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental responsibility of court personnel, especially those in charge, to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding court property, records, and exhibits. As the Officer-in-Charge, Cabe bore a heightened responsibility for the branch’s administrative functions and the safekeeping of its assets.
His failure to ensure compliance with SC Circular No. 2 constituted a clear dereliction of duty. The circular was precisely issued to prevent precisely such incidents—the prolonged and insecure storage of dangerous evidence like firearms. By allowing the firearms to remain in the court’s custody long after the cases were closed, Cabe created an unnecessary risk that ultimately materialized in the theft. The Court emphasized that while he may not have been the direct custodian, his supervisory role as OIC made him accountable for the office’s overall adherence to rules and procedures. His inaction demonstrated a lack of the diligence and vigilance required of all court employees, who are bound to uphold public accountability and maintain the people’s faith in the judiciary. The fine imposed serves to underscore that negligence in the performance of official duties, particularly concerning court exhibits, will not be tolerated.