Facts:

The cases at hand, Administrative Matrices P-1472 and P-1649, revolve around the conduct of Constancio Velasco, a Deputy Sheriff of Baguio City. The events leading to this administrative action began with an order of execution issued on October 12, 1976, by Labor Arbiter Benigno M. Ayson related to NLRC Cases RB-1-102-76 and RB-1-99-76, which mandated the reinstatement of certain laborers working for Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. and the payment of their back wages. As Deputy Sheriff assigned to enforce this order, Velasco was tasked with collecting the due amounts from the mining company.

In Administrative Case No. P-1472, the mining company, Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc., accused Velasco of grave misconduct for allegedly overextending the order of execution by including additional payments such as emergency allowances, leave pay, and 13th month pay in his calculations of the total amount owed. Based on this inflated figure, Velasco garnished P35,000 from the company’s bank account to co

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Two administrative cases, P-1472 and P-1649, were initiated due to alleged irregularities in the enforcement of an order of execution issued on October 12, 1976, by Labor Arbiter Benigno M. Ayson in labor cases involving reinstatement and backwages.
• The order of execution required the Sheriff (or his deputy) to enforce payment of backwages along with the reinstatement of complainant laborers, while also providing for lawful fees related to the service of the execution.

Alleged Irregularities in Enforcement

• In Administrative Case No. P-1472, Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc.—a respondent in the labor cases—alleged that Deputy Sheriff Constancio Velasco exceeded the terms of the order by including in his computation not only the backwages but also emergency allowances, leave pay, and the 13th month pay.
• The excess computation led to the garnishment of P35,000 from the Mining Company’s bank deposit, which Velasco then used to pay the laborers.

Specific Actions and Controversies Raised

• In Administrative Case No. P-1649, Atty. Walter Carantes, counsel for the complainants, alleged that:
• Velasco withdrew P30,000 from the garnished P35,000, delivering this amount to him as per the receipts provided.
• Velasco subsequently withheld P5,000, allegedly diverting the funds for purposes not expressly authorized by the order.
• Velasco’s explanation included:
• Retaining the P5,000 to cover sheriff’s fees, commissions, and other expenses which would be computed later.
• Executing an affidavit of loss for the passbook of the account holding the P5,000, though evidence later revealed that the passbook had always been in the possession of another official (Atty. Andres V. Leal).

Steps Taken by the Respondent

• Velasco maintained in Case No. P-1472 that his computation of the amounts advanced was correct and that his actions were in the regular course of enforcing the order of execution.
• In Case No. P-1649, he asserted that the retention of the P5,000 was legitimate to answer for eventual costs and that his subsequent actions—depositing, executing an affidavit of loss, obtaining a new passbook, and making further deposits and withdrawals—were precautionary measures.

Documentary and Testimonial Evidence

• Evidence included notices of garnishment, bank documents, temporary and official receipts, copies of the order of execution, a letter of demand, and sworn affidavits.
• Testimonies and documentary submissions were examined by then Executive Judge Salvador J. Valdez Jr., who noticed:
• An erroneous interpretation of the order of execution by Velasco, resulting in an expanded computation of awards.
• Contributory errors by the Labor Arbiter who failed to specify in the decision the exact computation of backwages, along with the Mining Company’s failure to dispute Velasco’s computation.

Findings on the Handling of Funds

• Although Velasco’s initial error in computation was deemed without malice—and was partly attributable to the Labor Arbiter and the Mining Company’s inaction—his later handling of the P5,000 deposit raised serious doubts about his integrity.
• The series of unexplained deposits and withdrawals from the account associated with the new passbook indicated that Velasco treated public funds as if they were his personal funds, culminating in a significant discrepancy between the withdrawn amounts and the authorized computations.

Issue:

• Whether Deputy Sheriff Velasco exceeded the specific terms of the order of execution by including additional benefits (emergency allowances, leave pay, 13th month pay) beyond the backwages that were mandated.
• Whether Velasco’s handling of the garnished funds—specifically, the unauthorized retention and subsequent mismanagement of the P5,000 deposit—amounted to malfeasance and misappropriation of public funds.
• Whether the procedural and computational errors, including those attributable to the Labor Arbiter’s failure to specify backwage computations and the Mining Company’s lack of dispute, mitigate or accentuate Velasco’s accountability.
• Whether the cumulative actions of Velasco, despite some contributory errors from other parties, justify his dismissal from service with the attendant penalties such as the forfeiture of retirement privileges and disqualification from future public employment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)