P25,000.00 December 4, 2000
60,558.80 January 30, 2001
—————
P85,558.80 Total amount collected as per
statement of account.
(b) Amount remitted to Ms. Nora Trinidad
Amount Date
P40,000.00 February 19, 2001
5,000.00 June 1, 2001
5,000.00 August 16, 2001
16,000.00 September 2001
40,000.00 April 9, 2002
—————
P106,000.00 — Total amount remitted to
Ms. Nora Trinidad" 2
In its report, dated 08 November 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be so re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be suspended for six (6) months, without pay, for dishonesty. The OCA found it inexcusable for respondent to withhold the money from complainant and then to deliver the money in installments only after learning that an administrative case had been filed against him.chanrobles virtual law library
The Court agrees with the OCA in its findings and recommendation. Respondent sheriff is a ranking officer of the court; he is a public official entrusted with a fiduciary role. He plays an important part in the administration of justice and is called upon to discharge his duties with integrity, due care and circumspection. Anything less is unacceptable.
Complainant, the prevailing party in the damage suit, is entitled to the full amount adjudged to his favor. The duty imposed upon the sheriff in the proper execution of a valid writ is not just directory; it is mandatory. 3 When a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff, it becomes his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate. 4
His inculpatory acts notwithstanding, respondent sheriff has at least acknowledged his misconduct and made a full satisfaction of the judgment obligation. While this act of reparation is no excuse, the Court feels, however, that he can be entitled to some leniency; hence, the Court accepts the recommendation of the OCA imposing a six-month suspension, without pay, on respondent sheriff.
WHEREFORE, respondent Sheriff III Sotero S. Paclibar of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Legazpi City, is found GUILTY of dishonesty, and he is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION from office for a period of six (6) months, without pay, with a WARNING that any repetition of another infraction by him shall be dealt with most severely.
SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Rollo, p. 13.
2. Rollo, p. 11.
3. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Torio, A.M. No. P-98-1260, 14 January 1998, 284 SCRA 67.
4. Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia, A.M. MTJ-96-1085, 08 October 1998, 297 SCRA 354.