Case Digest (A.M. No. P-160)
Facts:
Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. v. Agapito Ramos, Deputy Sheriff, Office of the Provincial Sheriff, Pasig, Rizal, A.M. No. P-160, May 31, 1974, Supreme Court First Division, Teehankee, J., writing for the Court.
The complainant was Atty. Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. and the respondent was Agapito Ramos, a deputy (special) sheriff of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff, Rizal. Bengzon lodged an administrative complaint alleging gross neglect of duty and unauthorized use of an attached motor vehicle that Ramos had placed under official custody pursuant to a writ of preliminary attachment.
The investigating judge, Buenaventura J. Guerrero of the Rizal Court of First Instance, reported uncontroverted facts: On March 17, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Davao (Branch II) issued a writ of preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. 7877 in favor of Gustavo Suarez against Benito Dominguez, Jr. Respondent Ramos implemented the attachment and on April 23, 1973 attached Dominguez’s Chevrolet Impala (Plate No. 83-62). The vehicle was found parked at the Rizal Parking Lot several times on April 23–24, 1973 (timestamps in the report).
On April 24, 1973, the Davao CFI lifted and set aside the writ of attachment. Complainant personally delivered that order to Ramos on April 30, 1973, and Ramos released the Impala the same day. The investigating judge found, however, that notices of lifting the garnishment—although dated May 10, 1973—were not mailed until July 6, 1973; Ramos had delayed preparing the notices and delayed forwarding them to his mailing clerk, a lapse the judge deemed unreasonable and constitutive of neglect.
On the second charge, Ramos initially admitted in his August 24, 1973 answer that he had used the car on April 23–24 for purported maintenance, later testifying that he had placed the car in the custody of a co-employee (Bernardo San Juan) who used it. The investigating judge held that such use while the car was under attachment was unauthorized and could not be excused by custody-transfer, and that running the engine while stationary would have sufficed for maintenance.
The investigating judge recommended discipline but also noted Ramos’s 27 years of government service as a mitigating circumsta...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Agapito Ramos’s delay in preparing and mailing notices lifting the attachment constitute gross neglect of duty?
- Did respondent Ramos commit unauthorized use (or misappropriation) of the attached vehicle while it was under cust...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)