443 Phil. 323
VITUG, J.:
“IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs:Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court for implementation by respondent sheriff. Respondent, in his sheriff’s return, reported to the court that defendant Albello had already vacated the premises. A motion for demolition was later filed by the plaintiffs reiterating their plea that the defendant be directed to vacate the premises. This motion was subsequently withdrawn when the parties agreed to instead await the outcome of Civil Case No. 8804, entitled “Wilfredo A. Albello, et al. vs. Bienvinida Atun-Banzuela,” for quieting of title concerning the same property. The trial court, in its order of 13 July 1994, confirmed thusly:“1. ordering the defendant Rommel Albello to discontinue constructing his house in the land in question and to vacate said premises;
“2. ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs reasonable rentals at the rate of P50.00 a month from November 12, 1991 until he actually vacates the premises;
“3. ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs P1,500.00 for attorney’s fees and to pay the costs.”[1]
“In today’s hearing of the Motion for Demolition filed by plaintiffs, through counsel, the parties and counsels agreed that there should be two sets of padlocks and two sets of keys which would be used in padlocking the main door of the residential house in question. One padlock, together with its key, should be in the possession of the Sheriff, while the other padlock, with its key, (would be) in possession of the plaintiffs.On 15 October 1999, herein complainant, Emma Albello, wife of defendant Rommel Albello, filed a complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, asseverating that respondent sheriff demanded and received from complainant’s mother-in-law the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00). The money was supposedly paid to respondent sheriff with the latter’s assurance that he would take care of everything and open the padlocked property. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman dismissed the letter-complaint and indorsed the records of the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action.
“The defendant is advised by the court not to enter the premises until otherwise ordered. For humanitarian consideration and in the interest of justice, the plaintiffs are hereby withdrawing their motion for demolition pending the outcome of the quieting of title case involving the same parties before the Regional Trial Court.
“Mr. Jose Galvez, Deputy Sheriff, is hereby directed to repair to the premises in question and cause the padlocking of said main door and turn-over one padlock and its key to the plaintiffs while the other padlock and its key should be retained by said sheriff.”[2]
“After a careful perusal and evaluation of the evidence adduced and the demeanors of the witnesses, the undersigned Executive Judge finds the complainant’s version more credible and deserves full consideration. The deportment and manner of testimonies, during the investigation, of the private complainant Emma Albello and witness Salve Albello, a 57-year old public elementary school teacher, were natural, frank, and sincere in answering questions. There is no showing that they had ill reasons for testifying against respondent Jose O. Galvez, who admitted in his letter-complaint (Exh. G, Rollo, p. 14) that he does not know personally complainant Emma Albello. It has repeatedly been held that the testimonies of witnesses not actuated by improper motive is entitled to full faith and credit (People vs. Patag, 144 SCRA 429; People vs. Cruz, 191 SCRA 127; People vs. Rabang, 187 SCRA 682; People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 96397, Nov. 21, 1991).Judge Jacob, in his report, took into consideration the fact that respondent sheriff had been in the judiciary for thirty (30) years; accordingly, he recommended that he be suspended for one (1) year, without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with severely.
“As shown by evidence, a total amount of four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos was given to the respondent, broken as follows: P1,000.00 on July 1, 1999 supposedly as respondent’s sheriff’s fee, handed personally to him by complainant’s mother-in-law, Salve Albello; P1,000.00 given to respondent by Salve Albello on July 2, 1999 intended as partial payment for attorney’s fees; P1,000.00 given to respondent by Salve Albello on July 11, 1999 also as partial payment for attorney’s fees; and P1,000.00 given to respondent by complainant Emma Albello on August 1, 1999 as last and full payment for attorney’s fees. While complainant Emma Albello’s claim that respondent had demanded and received personally from her P1,000.00 on August 1, 1999 was not mentioned in her letter-complaint (Exh. A, Rollo, p. 1), it came out in the course of the investigation and should be, as it is hereby, acted upon.
“The admission by respondent having received the sum of the three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos from complainant’s mother-in-law, Salve Albello, has bolstered the complainant’s version. Moreover, Atty. Caesar Daep’s letter (Exh. E, Rollo, p. 10), addressed to respondent, refusing acceptance of said amount as retainer’s fee, shows that respondent, indeed, had with him the said amount. Respondent’s assertion that he had already returned said amount to Salve Albello on September 6, 1999 is, however, belied by the latter’s vigorous denial of receipt thereof. Besides, respondent has not shown any receipt or memorandum of some sort to support his claim. Between the words of respondent and those of Salve Albello, a 57-year old public elementary school teacher, the undersigned investigator gives full faith and credit to the latter.
“x x x x x x x x x
“The act of respondent in soliciting money from complainant and her mother-in-law is incompatible with the position and function of the respondent as deputy sheriff of the court. His demand for and receipt of moneys which he was not authorized to require from complainant and her mother-in-law, supposedly to expedite the opening of the padlocked house, constituted dishonesty and gross misconduct, prejudicial to the best interest of the service and acts unbecoming of a court employee.
“Public service requires the utmost integrity and the strictest discipline in the conduct of government employees. This is especially true of sheriffs, like herein respondent. As repeatedly held by the Supreme Court, in the case of public servants who are in the judiciary, their conduct and behavior, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion (Lacuata vs. Bautista, 235 SCRA 290, citing Mirano vs. Saavedra, 225 SCRA 77.)”[3]