THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. 00-1398-P. August 1,
2000]
ERLINDA N. SY, complainant, vs. DANILO P. NORBERTE, Deputy
Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 125, Caloocan City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
The case under
consideration originated from a letter-complaint, dated 20 July 1998, filed by
Erlinda N. Sy against Danilo P. Norberte, Sheriff IV, Branch 125, of the
Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Kalookan City. Sy was the plaintiff
in Civil Case No. C-18354 ("Erlinda N. Sy vs. Spouses Carlos and Antonietta
Galvez") for a sum of money with a prayer for preliminary attachment. The
case was raffled to Branch 122.
According to
complainant Sy, respondent Sheriff, together with Jocelyn N. Lucas and Erlinda
A. Bantug, both with RTC Branch 122, tipped off Galvez regarding the issuance
of a writ of preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. C-18354. Galvez promptly
removed all personal property from her place of business/residence at 104
Sampalukan Street, Kalookan City, in order to avoid attachment. Complainant saw
respondent Sheriff actively assisting and helping in the removal of the
property, which began at eight o'clock in the evening of 29 June 1998 and was
completed in the afternoon of the following day, and in thereafter padlocking
the place. The next day, she reported the matter to her lawyer and, on 01 July
1998, to Sheriff Ronaldo Morada of Branch 122. The latter forthwith left to
serve the writ and, sure enough, found the place empty and padlocked.
In his answer to
the complaint, respondent Sheriff countered that the charges against him were
"completely false, prevaricated, concocted, contrived, unfounded and
malicious." Admitting that Jocelyn Norberte Lucas was her aunt, he claimed
that he seldom saw her and had not, in fact, talked to her for quite some time.
He denied knowing the spouses Carlos and Antonietta Galvez. He said that on 29
June 1998, from 5:30 in the afternoon to 1:00 in the morning of the following
day, he was with Attorney Davidson Sarmiento and some PAO lawyers at Cafe
Caimito in 9th Avenue, Kalookan City, the next day being a special public
holiday. He then went home where he spent the whole day. Respondent submitted
an affidavit, dated 27 July 1998, executed by Attorney Sarmiento to bolster his
statement. Asserting that he had been a Sheriff for 27 years, and his wife
Cleofe, for a like period, had been with the Office of the Court Administrator,
he certainly would not jeopardize his position, as well as his wife's integrity
and reputation, by any wrongdoing.
In its resolution
of 21 April 1999, the Court referred the case to Executive Judge Bayani S.
Rivera of RTC, Kalookan City, Branch 129, for investigation, report and
recommendation.
In his report and
recommendation, following an investigation, Executive Judge Rivera submitted
his findings:
"Ranged
against the positive identification of respondent not only by complainant
herself but by 2 other witnesses (P01 Luis Coderes & Mrs. Susan Nunez) as
the one who assisted and helped Antonietta Galvez in the removal of her
personal properties from her residence and business shop and in the transfer
thereof to other places to defeat the forthcoming implementation of the writ of
preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. C-18354, I cannot see how respondent's
defense of alibi could help his claim to innocence. It is a matter of
jurisprudence that aside from being inherently weak and easy to fabricate,
alibi crumbles in the face of positive identification of the culprit by
prosecution witnesses (People vs. Narca, 275 SCRA 696). Withal, for alibi to prosper,
it is indispensable that there be credible and tangible proof of physical
impossibility for the respondent to be at the scene of the offense (People vs.
Salvatierra, 276 SCRA 55).
"In the
instant administrative case, the witness who corroborated respondent's claim of
alibi was Atty. Davidson Sarmiento who in effect indicated that it was 'no big
deal' for family men like him and respondent to be in a drinking spree from
5:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. of the next day. I do not mean to cast aspersion on government
personnel who indulge themselves in such bacchanalian orgy after office hours.
After all, it is their time that they squander in ephemeral and unproductive
activities. Even so, the short-lived entertainment which respondent and Atty.
Sarmiento apparently take matter-of-factly touches on their sense of values and
ultimately on their credibility. Simply stated, respondent and Atty. Sarmiento
apparently believe that there was nothing wrong in what they allegedly
did, more so in the instant case where it could be, as it was actually
utilized, as an alibi, albeit unavailing.
"Even
assuming in gratia argumenti that respondent and Atty. Sarmiento were in
fact at Cafe Caimito from 5:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. of the next morning, still the
defense of alibi in this case is futile. The restaurant-cocktail lounge on 9th
Avenue is just a few minutes ride to Sampalukan St., Caloocan City where the
removal of properties was done on the night of June 29, 1998. Ergo, the
physical impossibility required in People vs. Salvatierra, supra, finds
no application to this case.
"Another
incredible testimonial evidence in this case is the sur-rebuttal testimony of
Mr. Noel Mapue. This witness admitted that in order to help Antonietta Galvez
defeat the impending implementation of a writ of preliminary attachment against
her properties, he opened his warehouse on Dona Rita St., Caloocan City on the
night of June 29, 1998 so that Galvez and her companions could transfer her
knock-down lumber to said warehouse. If a person has no qualm or scruple about
helping another violate a lawful court process, how could his testimony that he
did not see respondent during the removal and transfer of Antonietta Galvez'
properties be treated differently. A person who admittedly violates the law is
certainly an incredible witness. His flimsy explanation that he wanted to help
Galvez in hiding her properties because she is 'his wife's friend' may well
apply to his attempt to help respondent in this administrative case because
they were neighbors in Caloocan City for 30 years.
"According to
complainant, respondent helped and actively assisted Antonietta Galvez
vis-a-vis the writ of preliminary attachment probably because he wanted his
aunt Salvacion Enriquez, who was also a creditor of Galvez, to be paid ahead of
her other creditors, including complainant.
"According to
respondent, the complainant filed this administrative case against him probably
because there was bad blood between his aunt Salvacion Enriquez and
complainant.
"Both
parties' speculations are neither here nor there, so to speak. The fact remains
quite clear that soon before the implementation of the writ of preliminary
attachment in Civil Case No. C-18354, respondent was seen not only by
complainant but also by 2 other witnesses helping Antonietta Galvez put
to naught the writ mentioned.
"Concededly,
no evidence was adduced to show that respondent physically or manually
assisted Antonietta Galvez in removing and transferring the properties. It was
unnecessary to do so. After all, respondent, unlike Galvez' laborers and
helpers, is a court sheriff whose mere mention to most defendants in civil
cases sends chill and discomfort to them. Respondent's mere presence,
therefore, is enough to give 'aid and comfort' to a beleaguered defendant, as
in Civil Case No. C-18354.
"Add to this
the clear, direct and positive testimony of complainant that she saw respondent
at the place of Antonietta Galvez during the removal of the properties not only
on June 29 but also on June 30, 1998, and the inevitable conclusion is that
respondent was not there for a mere social call but for something as sinister
as the administrative accusation against him establishes.
"The
Complaint against respondent is for Serious or Grave Misconduct. In the law of
public officers, and as ground for disciplinary action, this offense refers to
such misconduct which shows the element of corruption, clear intent to violate
the law or flagrant disregard of established rules (Landrito vs. CSC, 223 SCRA
564). Prescinding from the foregoing recitals, there is no room to doubt
respondent's culpability. Withal, respondent has failed to heed the following
injunction of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
"'xxx
'(b) Professionalism.
- Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with
the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They
shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They
shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers
or peddlers of undue patronage.
'x x
x' (Sec. 4; Emphasis supplied)'
"No evidence
was presented to show that respondent received any material recompense for what
he did in favor of Antonietta Galvez and against herein complainant. In fact,
complainant testified that although the writ of preliminary attachment in Civil
Case No. C-18354 was not implemented in Galvez' personal properties, it
was nonetheless executed as far as Galvez' 2 parcels of land were
concerned. It is for this reason that I am not disposed to recommend a very
harsh comeuppance upon respondent.
"x
x x................................x x x................................x x x
"PREMISES
CONSIDERED, I respectfully recommend that for the offense charged which has
been duly proven, respondent be meted the penalty of suspension from the
service without pay for ONE MONTH, with a warning that repetition of the same
or similar offense in the future shall mean a severe sanction."[1]
In the Court's
resolution of 22 September 1999, the report of the Investigating Judge was sent
to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation and recommendation. OCA
expressed its deference to the findings of the Investigating Judge but added:
"Anent the
charge that respondent tipped off defendant Galvez, the undersigned finds no
evidence to support the same.
"In sum, the
evidence at hand convinces us that indeed respondent sheriff was present during
the removal of the personal properties at the place of defendant Galvez, which
act we believe, should not be countenanced as it has the tendency of
undermining the integrity of the court to which respondent is a member. Being
an officer of the Court, respondent sheriff should have refrained from actuations
though innocent and in good faith may result in suspicion of impropriety and
may consequently taint the good image of the judiciary. But we are not saying
that respondent's presence at the scene while the properties are being removed
was done in good faith since the evidence points otherwise. Respondents' act of
not admitting to the court that he was present at the scene made us conclude
that he was doing an improper act.
"However,
with due regard to the evidence at hand and the fact that this is respondent's
first offense, the undersigned believes that the penalty of suspension without
pay for one month as recommended by the investigating judge is too harsh. Be
that as it may, let this case be a warning to respondent and to all employees
of the court to avoid activities that will adversely affect the dignity and
image of the judiciary.
"WHEREFORE,
the undersigned respectfully recommends that a FINE in the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) be imposed against Sheriff Danilo P. Norberte with
a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be
dealt with more severely."
The Court, after
its own evaluation of the records, and taking into account the report and
recommendations submitted by both the Investigating Judge and the OCA, is
convinced that respondent Sheriff indeed deserves to be administratively
sanctioned.
The nature and
responsibilities of officers and men of the judiciary, repeated every so often,
are neither mere rhetorical words nor idealistic sentiments but working
standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.[2] Their conduct and behavior, from the presiding judge
to the sheriffs and the lowliest personnel, should be characterized with the
greatest of circumspection.[3] Everyone is expected to serve with the highest
degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency[4] and to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum
at all times.[5]
Granting that
respondent did not actually tip off Galvez on the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment, his presence, however, when Galvez started to remove
the property from her place of residence and business by no means could have
been purely incidental. His alibi is unacceptable. Respondent has been
positively identified not only by complainant but likewise by her witnesses who
would have no reason to falsely implicate him. Respondent must have been aware
that the questioned act of Galvez is not for anything else but to circumvent a
valid court order. The Court agrees with the Office of the Court Administrator
that respondent Sheriffs action - his very presence during the removal of the
property of Galvez - was in itself censurable. It does not, however, share the
view of the OCA that the penalty of suspension, respondent's infraction being a
first offense, is too harsh.
WHEREFORE, respondent Danilo P. Norberte is hereby SUSPENDED
from the service, without pay, for one (1) month with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with
severely.
SO ORDERED.
Melo,
(Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima, and
Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.