Facts:

This case involves Horacio B. Apuyan, Jr. and Alexander O. Eugenio as complainants against Alfredo G. Sta. Isabel, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 161 in Pasig City. The administrative complaint was lodged on February 22, 2000, alleging Gross Misconduct, Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official, and Graft and Corruption, stemming from events that occurred in early February 2000. The complainants were employees of a corporation involved in a civil case (Civil Case No. 67654) where a writ of attachment was issued to secure the debts owed by the defendants. On February 8, 2000, the complainants went to fetch Sheriff Sta. Isabel along with a process server to enforce the writ. During this interaction, Sta. Isabel allegedly demanded that the police officers assisting them each receive a bribe of P1,000. Later, the Sheriff hinted at a "sheriff’s rate" and suggested a financial “settlement” of 0.05% based on the amount subject to attachment. After several

...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Complaint

• Complainants:
• Horacio B. Apuyan, Jr.
• Alexander O. Eugenio
• Respondent:
• Sheriff Alfredo G. Sta. Isabel, Sheriff IV of Regional Trial Court (Branch 161), Pasig City
• Grounds of the Complaint:
• Gross Misconduct
• Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official
• Graft and Corruption

Filing, Pleadings, and Pre-Hearing Proceedings

• Complaint and Initial Pleadings:
• Complaint filed on February 22, 2000 with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
• Respondent submitted his Comment on May 4, 2000 in response to the 1st Indorsement of March 29, 2000
• Complainants filed a Reply Affidavit on October 27, 2000
• Respondent filed a Rejoinder on December 3, 2000 denying the allegations
• Referral for Investigation:
• In the Resolution dated August 20, 2001, the case was referred to Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor for investigation, report, and recommendation

Events and Incidents Underlying the Allegations

• Hearings and Testimonies Presented:
• Multiple hearings were held in which both parties presented evidence
• Complainants’ witnesses included:
• Horacio B. Apuyan, Jr.
• Alexander O. Eugenio
• Atty. Norberto Ortiz Perez
• Mario Pangilinan (special sheriff assigned later)
• Court Stenographer Ramona Teresita Vega (rebuttal witness)
• Respondent’s witnesses included:
• Respondent himself
• Process Server Julio S. Bautista
• Atty. Emmanuel R. Jabla
• Detailed Incident on February 8, 2000 at the Office of Defendant Corporation:
• Complainants fetched the respondent to assist in implementing a writ of attachment against defendant corporation’s assets
• During the process of fetching police assistance at the Western Police District, the respondent allegedly demanded that police officers and mobile car operators receive not less than P1,000.00 each
• The respondent indicated he had information regarding the defendant’s bank account which could be subjected to garnishment
• He suggested a settlement rate difference, mentioning a rate of 5% in Manila versus 3% in Pasig, but offered a “0.05% share” based on P10,000,000.00
• Complainant Apuyan communicated with Atty. Perez regarding garnishment procedures
• Altercation and the Goodwill Money Incident:
• At complainants’ office:
• Complainant Apuyan handed an envelope containing P2,000.00 to respondent
• The respondent, upon seeing the amount, allegedly threw the envelope and hurled expletives, claiming that P2,000.00 was insulting
• A verbal confrontation ensued, involving demands for the presence of the company president and further negotiation regarding garnishment
• Subsequent developments:
• On February 9, 2000, respondent allegedly grabbed complainant Apuyan by the collar in the court premises
• On February 14, 2000, while awaiting a court hearing for the Motion to Assign a Special Sheriff, respondent confronted Atty. Perez, resulting in another heated verbal altercation
• Testimonies indicated discrepancies between the complainants’ and respondent’s versions, including the handling of the envelope and the timing of events
• Evidence of Inconsistencies and Physical Misconduct:
• Respondent’s conflicting statements and inconsistencies in his pleadings and testimony were highlighted during cross-examination
• The Court Stenographer’s testimony corroborated that respondent grabbed complainant Apuyan by the collar
• Process Server Bautista and other witnesses provided evidence regarding the alleged demand for a monetary “service fee” (P50,000.00) and the circumstances surrounding the envelope incident

Investigation Outcome and Administrative Findings

• Executive Judge Villasor’s Report (March 13, 2002):
• Found that the versions regarding events at the complainants’ office and in court were largely self-serving
• Established that physical misconduct (collaring Apuyan) was proven
• Recommended a fine of P10,000.00 against the respondent for said misconduct
• OCA’s Findings and Recommendations:
• Determined that the evidence clearly established that the respondent demanded a monetary sum (P50,000.00) for effecting the garnishment
• Identified the occurrence of a verbal altercation in the courtroom
• Confirmed the incident of physical misconduct (collaring of complainant Apuyan)
• Recommended the suspension of respondent for one year without pay

Issue:

Whether the respondent’s conduct during the implementation of the writ of attachment, including his demand for additional money, constitutes gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a public official

• Did the respondent unlawfully demand extra monetary consideration (alleged P50,000.00) or a percentage share from the funds subject to garnishment?
• Were the respondent’s actions—both physical (grabbing the complainant by the collar) and verbal (engaging in a heated confrontation)—sufficient to constitute misconduct?

The Credibility and Consistency of the Evidence Presented

• Do the conflicting versions of events as narrated by the respondent and the complainants affect the credibility of the respondent’s defense?
• Can the inconsistencies in the respondent’s account be reconciled with the direct testimonies of the complainants and other witnesses?

The Applicability of Administrative Rules and Ethical Standards

• Was the respondent’s behavior in violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court regarding the proper collection of fees and execution of court processes?
• Does the evidence support that the respondent’s actions were in breach of high ethical standards demanded of court personnel?

Imposition of Appropriate Disciplinary Measures

• Given that this was the respondent’s first administrative charge, should the penalty be suspension rather than dismissal?
• Is the recommended one-year suspension without pay, with a stern warning, commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)