A.M. No. P-01-1476 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 99-746-P) - EMMA A. ALBELLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSE O. GALVEZ, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, LEGAZPI CITY.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, he recommended that he be suspended for one (1) year, without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with severely. The Office of the Court Administrator, in its memorandum of 08 March 2002, adopted the findings and recommendation of Executive Judge Jacob. Indeed, the assailed conduct of respondent sheriff cannot be countenanced. He has admitted having received the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) from complainant. The Court is inclined to give more credence to the claim of complainant that the sum was demanded by respondent sheriff to expedite the opening of the padlocked house than his claim that the amount was intended to help complainant obtain the legal services of Atty. Caesar Daep. Even if respondent's claim were true, it would have been an inexcusable act of imprudence on his part to intercede in such manner for a party-litigant. Respondent sheriff is an officer of the court, and he has an essential part in the administration of justice. He is required to live up to the stringent standards of his office, and his conduct must at all times be above reproach and suspicion. He must steer clear of any act that can tend to undermine his integrity or to erode somehow the peoples faith and trust in the courts. Ordinarily, the charges against respondent, once established, would warrant the penalty of dismissal from the service. The Court, however, has resolved to adopt the penalty recommended by the Investigating Judge and the Office of the Court Administrator in consideration of his having been in the service for thirty (30) long years and because the infraction is his first offense. WHEREFORE, respondent Jose G. Galvez, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Legazpi City, is SUSPENDED for one (1) year, without pay, with the stern warning that a repetition of the same or any other act of infraction on his part in the future shall be dealt with most severely. Respondent is likewise ordered to immediately restitute, if not yet done, the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) to complainant. SO ORDERED.