Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Sheriffs; conflict of interest. - A.M. No. P-11-2944

A.M. No. P-11-2944

Excerpts:

"x x x.

Sheriffs, in particular, being officers of the court and agents of the law, are exacted to use prudence, due care, and diligence in the discharge of their official duties. Where rights of individuals are jeopardized by their actions, sheriffs may be properly fined, suspended, or dismissed from office by virtue of this Court's administrative supervision over the judicial branch of the government.[9]

In the earlier case of Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr.,[10] a sheriff was suspended for one month without pay for accepting a position in a private entity. It was explained in that case that:

The act of the respondent in accepting the position of an administrator/ trustee of a private entity and for continuously holding the same for a considerable period of time, aside from being violative of the aforesaid circulars, can be properly called as moonlighting. While moonlighting is not normally considered as a serious misconduct, nonetheless, by the very nature of the position held by respondent, it obviously amounts to malfeasance in office. Respondent, in engaging in other irrelevant activities, failed to observe and maintain that degree of dedication to the duties and responsibilities required of him as a deputy sheriff.[11] [Emphasis supplied]

More recently, another sheriff was suspended for receiving “sheriff’s fees” without the court’s knowledge and approval, and for moonlighting by collecting rentals for a domestic company. Although moonlighting was merely considered as an aggravating circumstance in that case, the Court pointed out, nonetheless, that it was a malfeasance in office.[12] Thus, in the case of Garcia v. Alejo,[13] it was stated:

x x x there is a prohibition for all officials and employees of the judiciary to engage directly in any private business, vocation or profession even outside office hours. Alejo's acts can be considered as moonlighting, which, though not normally considered as a serious misconduct, amounts to malfeasance in office.[14] [Emphasis supplied]

In the present case, Regalado’s moonlighting activity is inescapably linked to his work as a sheriff. It is connected or somehow related to the performance of his official functions and duties as a sheriff.[15] He was, after all, in charge of implementing the writ of possession over the property contested by the Abadianos and Genosolango. Yet, a special power of attorney was also issued in his favor to act for and on behalf of Genosolango. Undoubtedly, there is a conflict of interest. Given its complicities, this moonlighting activity of Regalado definitely constitutes an act of impropriety.

Withal, Regalado is guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his official functions punishable with suspension without pay for not less than one (1) month but not more than three (3) months, or a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos (₱10,000.00) but not exceeding twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00).[16]

x x x."