Sheriff Misconduct: When Moonlighting Becomes Malfeasance in Office — Abadiano v. Regalado

---

A sheriff is an officer of the court, an agent of the law whose duty is to implement court orders faithfully and impartially. But what happens when a sheriff, tasked with enforcing a writ of possession, also secretly works for the very party who benefits from that writ? The Supreme Court's decision in Abadiano v. Regalado (A.M. No. P-11-2944, July 27, 2011) answers this question with a clear warning: moonlighting connected to official functions is not merely an indiscretion—it is malfeasance in office.

The Facts: A Writ of Possession and a Suspicious Arrangement

The complainants were heirs of the late spouses Pablo and Teodora Abadiano. After their father's death, their brother Armando obtained a court order allowing him to encumber certain properties to pay for their father's medical expenses. Armando, however, went beyond the court's permission. Without informing his siblings, he obtained a loan exceeding the amount of the medical expenses and used one of their father's properties as security.

When the mortgagee, Alfredo Genosolango, initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings, the complainants filed an annulment case to protect their interests. While that case was pending, Sheriff Generoso B. Regalado of RTC Branch 16, Cebu City, served a Writ of Possession on the complainants and placed Genosolango in actual possession of the property.

The trouble escalated in October 2009. Regalado went to the property and prevented the complainants from collecting rentals from the occupants, threatening them with estafa if they insisted. When challenged, he openly showed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Genosolango authorizing him to act on the latter's behalf. This SPA became the centerpiece of the administrative complaint against him.

The Issue: Conflict of Interest and Impropriety

Regalado denied the allegations, claiming he was merely performing his duty in implementing the writ. He dismissed the SPA as a "stray paper," insisting it was Genosolango's lawyer who received the rentals. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, found the complainants' version more credible. The SPA, duly executed and bearing Regalado's signature, was the evidence that pinned him down.

The central question was whether a sheriff's act of serving as attorney-in-fact for a party in a case he was handling—without the court's knowledge or consent—constituted misconduct.

The Ruling: Moonlighting as Malfeasance

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's evaluation but refined the offense. While the OCA recommended a finding of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, the Court held that Regalado was guilty of Misconduct in the discharge of his official functions.

The Court cited prior jurisprudence to explain why moonlighting by a sheriff is serious. In Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr., a sheriff was suspended for accepting a position in a private entity. The Court explained that while moonlighting is not normally considered serious misconduct, "by the very nature of the position held by respondent, it obviously amounts to malfeasance in office." Similarly, in Garcia v. Alejo, the Court reiterated that there is a prohibition for all officials and employees of the judiciary to engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession even outside office hours.

What made Regalado's case worse was that his moonlighting was inescapably linked to his work as a sheriff. He was in charge of implementing the writ of possession over the property contested by the Abadianos and Genosolango, yet he also held an SPA to act for and on behalf of Genosolango. This created an undeniable conflict of interest. The Court emphasized that judicial employees must avoid any impression of impropriety, as they are "keepers of the public's faith in the courts."

Regalado was fined ₱10,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs and judicial employees cannot moonlight for private parties, especially those involved in cases they handle. Even activities outside office hours are prohibited if they create a conflict of interest.
• An SPA signed by a party in a case is powerful evidence of impropriety. A sheriff's bare denial cannot overcome clear documentary proof of such an arrangement.
• Moonlighting connected to official duties is malfeasance in office, not a mere administrative lapse. Courts view this as a breach of the high ethical standards required of judicial personnel.
• The public's faith in the judiciary depends on the conduct of its employees. Any act that diminishes that faith—or even tends to diminish it—will not be countenanced.
• Penalties for such misconduct range from suspension without pay for one to three months, or a fine of ₱10,000.00 to ₱20,000.00, depending on the severity.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.