A.M. No. P-05-1976(Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1835-P) - ERLINDA BERGONIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROMEO S. GATCHECO, JR., SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SANTIAGO CITY, BRANCH 1. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that the respondent sheriff, Romeo Gatcheco, Jr. of the MTCC, Branch 1, Santiago City be dismissed from the service. The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendation. Indeed, the primary duty of sheriffs is to execute judgments and orders of the court to which they belong. It must be stressed that a judgment, if not executed, would just be an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party. [4] It is said that execution is the fruit and the end of the suit and is very aptly called the life of the law. [5] It is also indisputable that the most difficult phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment. Hence, the officers charged with this delicate task must, in the absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice; otherwise, the decisions, orders, or other processes of the courts of justice would be futile. [6] Indeed, court personnel, from the lowliest employee to the clerk of court or any position lower than that of a judge or justice, are involved in the dispensation of justice, and parties seeking redress from courts for grievances look upon them as part of the Judiciary. Thus, in performing their duties and responsibilities, court personnel serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it. [7] Thus, court employees should, at all times, show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of duties. By his actuations, the respondent showed very little regard in upholding the law. As front-line representatives of our justice system, sheriffs in particular, should be more vigilant in the execution of the law, for once the people's trust is lost, the people's faith in the Judiciary is diminished. The imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court is to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice. [8] The Court is thus constrained to rule that the respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. In fact, his failure to file his comment and his continued refusal to meet the charges against him head-on are indicative of his guilt. Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. This penalty is in accordance with Section 52 and Section 58, Rule IV, of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service). [9] WHEREFORE, Respondent Romeo S. Gatcheco, Jr. is found GUILTY of dishonesty and gross misconduct. He is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any br