Facts:

The case involves Amelia L. Avellanosa as the complainant and Jose Z. Camaso, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Cebu City, as the respondent. The administrative complaint was initiated on October 16, 2000, stemming from an incident related to Civil Case No. CEB-19293. Avellanosa was the plaintiff in this case, which was originally assigned to Judge Martin Ocampo of Branch 7, Cebu City. Following Judge Ocampo's death, the case was re-raffled to Judge Olegario Sarmiento, Jr. of Branch 24. On August 4, 2000, Judge Sarmiento issued an order directing Sheriff Camaso to conduct an auction sale of a conjugal lot involved in the civil case.

On August 8 or 9, 2000, Avellanosa visited Branch 24 to obtain a copy of the order and to follow up on its implementation. During her interaction with Sheriff Camaso, she encountered rudeness and a lack of cooperation. Camaso demanded a copy of the lot's description, which Avellanosa did not have, suggesting that they c...

Facts:

Background of the Case:

• Amelia L. Avellanosa, the complainant, was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. CEB-19293, originally assigned to Judge Martin Ocampo of Branch 7, Cebu City. After Judge Ocampo's death, the case was re-raffled to Branch 24, presided over by Judge Olegario Sarmiento, Jr.

Court Order for Auction Sale:

• On 04 August 2000, Judge Sarmiento issued an order directing respondent Jose Z. Camaso, Sheriff IV, to conduct an auction sale of a conjugal lot involved in the case.

Complainant's Interaction with Respondent:

• On or about 8 or 9 August 2000, Avellanosa went to Branch 24 to secure a copy of the order and follow up its implementation with Sheriff Camaso. She explained her urgent need for money for medical expenses.
• Sheriff Camaso responded rudely, demanding a copy of the lot description, which Avellanosa did not have. He refused to retrieve it from court records and instead shifted the conversation to an accounting of the sale proceeds, implying personal expenses like transportation and meals.
• Avellanosa pleaded with Camaso to expedite the auction, offering P20.00 and promising to meet his demands. Camaso insinuated she had P140,000.00 from a previous auction, which she explained had been spent on legal fees, medical bills, and debts.
• Camaso refused to specify his demands, abruptly left, and became inaccessible thereafter.

Attempts to Contact Respondent:

• Avellanosa made multiple unsuccessful attempts to reach Camaso, including visiting the courthouse early in the morning and during hearings. Staff members informed her that Camaso left early and had no phone.
• Her lawyer also failed to contact Camaso, leading to the filing of a motion for the appointment of a special sheriff, which was granted.

Confrontation with the Ombudsman:

• Avellanosa filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, requesting a confrontation. During the meeting, Camaso denied her allegations and behaved sarcastically, sticking out his tongue and smiling mockingly. Although he apologized, Avellanosa found his demeanor insincere.

Respondent's Defense:

• Camaso claimed Avellanosa had not paid the "government's commission" from the first auction and denied being inaccessible. He admitted apologizing but maintained his innocence.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Duty of Sheriffs: Sheriffs are obligated to discharge their duties promptly, with care, and without undue delay. Any lackadaisical attitude undermines efficiency and competence.
2. Prohibition Against Gratuities: Sheriffs must not accept or demand gratuities from parties they serve. Even indirect conduct suggesting corruption or exploitation of a party's predicament is unacceptable.
3. Standard of Integrity: Court officials, especially sheriffs, must uphold the highest standards of honesty and professionalism. Their conduct must reflect the trust reposed in them by the judiciary.
4. Evidence of Misconduct: Camaso's failure to implement the court order, his rude behavior, and his insinuations for personal gain demonstrated a lack of professionalism and integrity. His apology, though made, was deemed insincere and insufficient to absolve him of wrongdoing.