Case Digest (A.M. No. P-09-2735)
Facts:
Levi M. Argoso v. Achilles Andrew Regalado II, A.M. No. P-09-2735 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2614-P), October 12, 2010, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Levi M. Argoso wrote a letter dated April 2, 2007 to the Court Administrator accusing Sheriff IV Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II of acts unbecoming a sheriff in relation to the implementation of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. RTC-91-2454 (Heirs of Adelaida Vicente-Argoso v. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al.). Argoso alleged that Regalado repeatedly asked him for money purportedly for travel to the DBP-Daet branch and at times for drinks and "pulutan," and he itemized several cash transfers and a check dated February 7, 2007.Regalado filed a comment denying extortion. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to the Naga City Regional Trial Court (RTC) executive judge for investigation, report and recommendation. The investigating judge (Judge Jaime E. Contreras) found that a writ of execution had been properly issued and assigned to Regalado, that Regalado admitted receiving money from Argoso for travel to DBP-Daet, and that the DBP-Daet bank manager corroborated Regalado’s visits. The judge further found that Regalado did not prepare an estimated sheriff’s expense duly approved by the court, allegedly at Argoso’s request to avoid delay, and concluded that Regalado violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 35-04 (Aug. 12, 2004). The investigating judge recommended that Regalado be strongly admonished.
The OCA considered the recommended penalty too light, pointing to Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court requiring the sheriff to submit estimated expenses for court approval and deposit with the clerk of court; money must be disbursed and liquidated properly and any unspent amount refunded. The OCA characterized Regalado’s noncompliance as a serious violation (less grave under Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) and recommended a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning.
The Court noted a prior administrative case against Regalado, Domingo Pena, Jr. v. Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II, A.M. No. P-10-2772 (decided Feb. 16, 2010), where Regalado was found guilty for not following proper procedures in enforcing writs (including receiving and failing to remit P13,000, issuing only a handwritten receipt) and was suspended for one year without pay. Finding the present matter to be a second administrative case arising from the same misconduct—receipt of money without compliance with required procedures—the Court considered Section 52(...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Regalado’s receipt of money from an interested party without complying with the procedural requirements for sheriff’s expenses constitute administrative liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?
- If so, is dismissal the appropriate penalty given Regalado’s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)