A.M. No. P-90-408, P-90-453 - Houghton vs. Velasco

Two administrative matters were consolidated against Deputy Sheriff Antonio Velasco (Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 and Adm. Matter No. P-90-453).
The cases were filed on February 2, 1990, and involve charges ranging from unbecoming conduct prejudicial to the service, grave abuse of authority, extortion or bribery, to contempt of court.

In Civil Case No. 89-49342 (Stephen J.E. Bastian v. Richard M. Houghton), a writ of replevin was issued on June 30, 1989, directing the seizure of a motor vehicle and other personal properties belonging to the defendants.
Respondent, while enforcing the writ in the presence of plaintiff’s counsel (Atty. Pablo M. Taguines) and plaintiff Stephen Bastian, seized the properties and immediately turned them over to the counsel based on an executed undertaking.
The turnover was alleged to violate Sections 4 and 6 of the Rules of Court, which required that the seized property be kept in custody for five (5) days to allow for any objection or counterbond process.

It was alleged that Deputy Sheriff Velasco demanded and received P10,000.00 as bribe money to execute the seizure order.
The allegation was based on the sworn statement of Atty. Manuel Chico; however, the timing of his appearance in the case raised doubts about his personal knowledge of the incident.

The complaint also charged the respondent with prolonged absence without leave based on his reporting at RTC, Branch 14 without a proper detail order.
Respondent contended that his transfers between Branch 47, Branch 14, and the Office of the Clerk of Court were all performed with the necessary approvals from the proper judicial authorities.

On July 11, 1990, Deputy Sheriff Velasco was required to comment on the charges, in which he defended his actions regarding the seizure and turnover of the properties.
The case underwent an investigation by Judge Corona Ibay Somera, with her report dated September 9, 1991, finding inconsistencies and lapses in the proper adherence to the mandated procedures, particularly in executing the writ of replevin.
Findings included that the turnover of the seized property, even if motivated by the lack of storage space at the Sheriff’s Office and backed by an undertaking from counsel, was a deviation from the specific directive of retaining the property for the prescribed period.
The investigation also established that the charge of prolonged absence was negated by documentary evidence showing that the respondent acted with the approval of the presiding judges during his transfers.

Based on the gathered evidence, the investigating judge recommended the suspension of Deputy Sheriff Velasco for one month without pay for the abuse of authority.
The court, while concurring with the finding on misconduct in the implementation of the writ, dismissed the prolonged absence charge after considering the respondent’s reported engagements.
Ultimately, the court imposed a fine of P4,000.00 on the respondent with a stern warning that a recurrence of such conduct would attract more severe sanctions.

Whether the immediate turnover of seized properties to the plaintiff’s counsel, instead of retaining them for five (5) days as ordered, constitutes grave abuse of authority.

Is the respondent’s reliance on the executed undertaking from Atty. Taguines a sufficient justification for deviating from the prescribed procedure under Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of Court?
Does the good faith motivation (to prevent loss or damage of the property due to lack of storage) mitigate the breach of procedural rules?

Whether the charge of prolonged absence without leave is sustainable given the documentary evidence of authorized transfers between branches.

Did the respondent indeed report for duty as required, even though he was assigned across different offices?
Can the approvals from the presiding judges in different branches serve as adequate defense against the charge of absence without leave?

Whether the allegations of bribery or extortion are substantiated by credible evidence, considering the inconsistencies in the testimony and timing of appearances of the witnesses involved.