Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49742:am-p-04-1907-2007&catid=1494&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:16:03+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-04-1907 - Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1872-P - Ildefonso P. Jacinto v. Bernabe M. Castro etc.
ILDEFONSO P. JACINTO, Complainant, v. BERNABE M. CASTRO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela, Respondent.
Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Echague, Isabela found the accused in Criminal Case No. JR-2387, "People of the Philippines v. Christopher Salvador," guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and physical injuries1 and ordered him to pay Ildefonso P. Jacinto (Jacinto), herein complainant, among others, actual damages in the amount of P73,266 and attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000, and in case of insolvency, Artemio Salvador (Salvador), the owner of the passenger jeepney involved in the case, would be subsidiarily liable.
Herein complainant Jacinto thereupon charged respondent Sheriff for Refusal to Perform Official Duty and Acts Favoring Judgment Debtors in connection with the implementation of the writ of execution issued by the trial court.
Justifying the release of the tricycle, respondent, in his Answer9 of April 14, 2004, explains that the accused was no longer the owner thereof, he (the accused) having sold it to one Julius Raspado who showed him a copy of a deed of sale10 for the purpose.
The case was referred for investigation, report and recommendation of the Executive Judge of the RTC, Echague, Isabela who reported that the parties submitted their case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), noting that respondent released the vehicles despite the absence of affidavits supporting third-party claims and the prior approval of the court, found that respondent failed to adhere to the rules regarding third-party claims. It found too that respondent failed to observe the rules on acceptance of fees representing expenses for the implementation of writs.
Finally, the OCA found that respondent failed to observe Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 (R.A. 6713) on public officials and employees' obligation to respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public.
The OCA thus recommended the suspension of respondent for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely.
SEC. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. - If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.
Evidently, respondent failed to observe the foregoing rule.
Respondent likewise lost sight of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which provides that "[a]ll public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request."
Instead, however, of suspending respondent, this Court, consistent with this Court's pronouncements in Aquino v. Lavadia18 and Morta v. BagagÃ±an,19 deems it appropriate, so as not to hamper his work and other duties of his office, to impose on respondent a fine equivalent to his two - month salary, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be strictly dealt with.
WHEREFORE, respondent BERNABE M. CASTRO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela, is guilty of simple neglect of duty and violation of Section 10(l)(2) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 and is hereby ordered to pay a FINE equivalent to his TWO-MONTH SALARY with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
15 Bautista v. Orque, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-2099, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 309, 313.
16 Santuyo v. Benito, A.M. No. P-05-1997, August 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 461, 468; Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1786, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 265, 278.
17 Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, supra note 16.
18 417 Phil. 770 (2001).
19 461 Phil. 312 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.