A.M. No. P-18-3833 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4370-P) - JULIUS E. PADUGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROBERTO "BOBBY" R. DIMSON, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF VALENZUELA CITY, BRANCH 171.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, be meted the penalty of suspension for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will merit the most severe penalty from the Court. [9] The OCA found respondent guilty of usurpation of authority and abuse of authority - which in turn, constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service - as his mere presence and manifest involvement with the parties absent a writ of execution and without being deputized to do so are unequivocal acts signifying his encroachment of the duties and functions of the actual person tasked to implement the ruling of the RTC-QC Br. 221, i.e. , the Sheriff of the same branch. [10] The OCA further pointed out that respondent is likewise guilty of Less Serious Dishonesty as the official records reveal that he was not on leave on those dates when he personally appeared at the property subject of litigation, thus, belying his claim that he committed said acts in his personal capacity. [11] Finally, the OCA pointed out that respondent's meddling with the affairs of RTC-QC Br. 221 rendered him guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty as he failed to perform his duties as Sheriff in RTC-Valenzuela Br. 171. [12] The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of. The Court's Ruling The Court adopts the findings and the recommendations of the OCA. Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service involves the demeanor of a public officer which tends to tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office. [13] On the other hand, Dishonesty has been defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, or intent to violate the truth. Under CSC, Resolution No. 06-0538, dishonesty may be classified as serious, less serious or simple. [14] Section 4 of said Resolution states that Less Serious Dishonesty necessarily entails the presence of any one of the following: circumstances: ( a ) the dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as to qualify under Serious Dishonesty; ( b ) the respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act; and ( c ) other analogous circumstances. Finally, Simple Neglect of Duty means the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. [15] As correctly found by the OCA, respondent is guilty of all three (3) of these offenses, considering that: ( a ) as a Sheriff in RTC-Valenzuela Br. 171, he encroached on the authority, duties, and functions of the Sheriff of RTC-­QC Br. 221 when he personally appeared at the property subject of a ruling in said court, without being deputized to do so; ( b ) respondent lied when he claimed to have done so during his personal