THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1439. May 9,
2000]
VIRGINIA
VILLALUZ VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE JAIME F. BAUTISTA and
DEPUTY SHERIFF JAIME T. MONTES, RTC, BR. 75, VALENZUELA, METRO MANILA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
Respondents Judge Jaime F. Bautista and
Deputy Sheriff Jaime T. Montes were charged with gross misconduct for allegedly
soliciting consideration in exchange for a favorable decision and for delaying
execution thereof to the alleged embarassment and humiliation of complainant
Virginia Villaluz vda. De Enriquez. Exsm
The complaint, docketed Administrative Case
No. RTJ-99-1439, was referred to the Court of Appeals for Investigation, Report
and Recommendation.
Following the investigation, Honorable
Salvador J. Valdez, Jr., Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, submitted
an extensive evaluation of the case. In his carefully prepared report, he
summed up his findings. Kyle
Complainant Virginia Villaluz vda. De
Enriquez filed a "Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution" in
an ejectment suit, docketed Civil Case No. 4632-V-95, before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 75, of Valenzuela. Respondent Judge Bautista, according to
complainant, issued on two different dates, one on 22 April 1997 and the other
on 24 April 1997, two writs of demolition. Just as when everything was all set
for the demolition, the writs of demolition were temporarily suspended for
reasons unknown to complainant. In addition, the latter claimed that respondent
judge inhibited himself from further taking cognizance of the civil case after
issuing his order of suspension of the demolition. Respondent Deputy Sheriff
Jaime T. Montes, complainant asserted, demanded from her the sum of P20,000.00
to cover the expenses of the demolition. She averred that during the pendency
of the case from 1995 to 1997, respondent judge issued a total of 23 orders and
asked, each time, for gifts or other things in consideration thereof.
On 24 April 1997, the scheduled date of the
demolition, respondent sheriff advised complainant to engage the services of a
security guard to prevent entry of squatters in the premises once the
demolition would have been undertaken. Complainant followed the suggestion and
even went so far as to immediately hire individuals who were to fence the
premises after the houses would have been dismantled. No demolition team,
however, arrived on the scheduled date; instead, she was informed by respondent
sheriff that respondent judge had ordered the demolition to meanwhile be held
in abeyance.
Respondent Judge, in His COMMENT of 12
August 1997, vehemently denied the accusations leveled against him. Driven by
purely humanitarian reasons and taking into account the fact that the
defendants would be literally thrown out to the streets, he issued an order
temporarily suspending the enforcement of the writ of demolition. He later
inhibited himself from proceeding with the case because a relative who happened
to be a classmate of the lawyer for the defendants interceded. Nonetheless, he
ultimately set aside the order of inhibition and once again took cognizance of
the case.
Msesm
Respondent sheriff submitted his COMMENT by
way of an affidavit, dated 01 September 1997, controverting the charges against
him by complainant. He said he issued the "notice to vacate" but the
defendants refused to acknowledge the receipt thereof. On 17 April 1997,
respondent judge ordered respondent sheriff to cause the immediate removal of
the improvements on the premises. On 22 April 1997, he proceeded to the demolition
site in the company of twelve persons and two police officers. The counsel for
complainant acceded to the request made by the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
the barangay for the suspension of the impending demolition. On 25 April 1997,
heeding the handwritten plea of the defendants, he was again ordered to suspend
the demolition. Resolving the "Ex-Parte Motion for Full Enforcement of the
Writ of Demolition," respondent Judge, by an order, dated 15 May 1997,
instructed him to immediately implement the writ. Demolition work thus began on
19 May 1997 at about one o'clock in the afternoon. While the demolition was
on-going, five persons arrived at the site, one of whom was a certain Boboy
Agustin from the Office of the Mayor, to plead for a two-day stoppage with an
assurance that the defendants would voluntarily disassemble their houses. There
was also a phone call from a Major Frank Bucayu who made a similar request. He
agreed to suspend the demolition for a period of two days but resumed the same
on 22 May 1997 until its completion the next day. The writ of demolition having
been executed and fully satisfied, he then issued a "turn-over"
receipt to the complainant. Esmso
Respondent sheriff further asserted that
what he actually had received from complainant was the sum of P25,000.00 which
was used to cover the expenses entailed by the demolition. Moreover, he
explained, he hired the services of twelve persons at P300.00 each for four
days in addition to the amount of P3,000.00 given to the "PNP SWAT"
Team. He gave a breakdown of expenses; viz:
"(Demol.
Team)12 persons x P300 ea. x
4 dates =
P14,400.00
(Whole Team) PNP
SWAT x
P3,000.00 x 4
dates = P12 000.00
TOTAL EXPENSE =
P26,400.00
Less = P25,000.00
Unpaid Balance to
the Team = (P1,400.00)"[1]
Respondent sheriff defended the integrity of
respondent Judge, asseverating that in five years that he had worked with the
judge, the latter never used at any time his position for personal advancement
or gain.
Esmmis
In his AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT of 10
September 1997, as well as in his MOTION TO DISMISS of 10 June 1999, respondent
Judge insisted that since complainant and her relatives had already been
effectively placed in possession of the land in dispute and that their
grievance had theretofore been redressed by the court, the administrative case
should be considered moot and academic. Respondent Judge belied the existence
of any correspondence, official or personal, between him and complainant about
the ejectment case. In this regard, the following series of questions and answers
transpired in the course of the investigation conducted by Justice Salvador J.
Valdez, Jr., thus:
"Q In the
complaint filed against you which is actually a handwritten letter, there were
three handwritten letters also attached with, which handwritten letters
previously marked as Exhibit 'B', 'C', and 'D'. I am now showing these exhibits
or handwritten letters to you, Judge, and will you please tell us if these are
your letters?
"A Yes, these
are my personal letters not to the complainant but to my niece Nanette, niece
by my mother side.
"Q These
letters were addressed to a certain 'Boss' or 'Boss Nanette', are you saying
that this 'Boss' or 'Boss Nanette' does not refer to the complainant in this
case?
"A Yes, I
have never written any letter, personal or official, to the complainant but to
my niece.
"Q In other
words, you are now admitting that this 'Boss' or 'Boss Nanette' referred to,
whom you are addressing these letters marked as Exhibit 'B', 'C' and 'D' is
your niece?
"A Yes, a
young girl of 32 years old.
"Q And where
is the residence of this niece of yours?
"A In
Valenzuela also.
"Q Are you
referring to Exhibit 'C', Judge, and there is a word here 'abunuhan'. What do
you mean by this?
"A Actually,
it all started, my niece called me up so I sent a letter to her. She was
requesting me if I could join them, after 5:00, after my official work as
judge, join them in ballroom dancing, because they are going out at night so I
said I could contribute for myself.
"Q So, what
do you mean then by the word 'abuno'?
"A For her to
seek some solicitation, so I could give some referral but it should be done
after office hours.
"Q There is
also a statement in this Exhibit 'C' which states and I quote, 'Ihanda ninyo
yong sobre.' What do you mean by that?
"A The
envelope was to contain the referrals because she leaves ahead of me from
Valenzuela. I only assumed RTC Judge in Valenzuela in 1993. She has been
residing there before my assumption. So she knows more people than I do. So,
just bring the envelope and place there the list of persons whom she
knows, but I specifically instructed her not to include my lawyers anymore
because I intend to have it in my personal capacity, after 5 o'clock. As a
matter of fact, I would have like to stop the ballroom activity but it did not
push through.
"Q There is
also a statement here and I quote, 'Ire-release ng 2:00 p.m.' What are you
trying to say here, Judge?
"A That word
there is meant to be a notice for a meeting among all the participants to the
ballroom dancing. I have been in the judiciary for ten years, and I was before
the Assistant Prosecutor, so I was used to using legal terms but that should
have been a notice. I admit it was a mistake.
"Q So, what
are you trying to say is that at 2 o' clock p.m., a notice to hold a ballroom
dancing is to be released?
"A Yes, a
meeting after 5 o'clock at their residence. It should not be an order.
"Q And why
did you then write this to your niece?
"A Because
she called up by telephone.
"Q And what
was your purpose in writing this letter then to your niece?
"A Precisely,
to check whether in the referral contained in the envelope, she included some
litigants or lawyers. I would not condone that. It should be personal friends.
"Q And did
you actually attend the ballroom dancing?
"A It did not
push through because she didn't make the required abuno. I could only make
abuno for myself because I also want to join them to unwind after office hours.
"Q Now, in
connection with these letters Exhibit 'C' and 'D', do you want to say something
else?
"A Yes, of
course. I have never written any personal or official or judicial letter to the
complainant. To my mind, I don't know how that came into the possession of the
complainant. Although last hearing she said it was a certain Mr. Joaquin. I
don't know Mr. Joaquin since Adam.
"x
x x x x x x x x
"Q Judge, you
admitted that Exhibits 'B', 'C', and 'D' are your letters?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q Just for
the record, will you kindly read the contents of Exhibit 'B'?
"JUDGE
BAUTISTA: (reading)
'Boss, nasaan yong
dagdag,baka puede yong dagdag ngayon dahil may date uli kami ni Dra. Evelyn.
Thanks, Boss.'
"JUDGE
VALDEZ:
Will you kindly
read the contents of Exhibit 'C'?
"JUDGE
BAUTISTA(reading):
'Nanette, ihanda
ninyo yong sobre, kung kulang dagdagan ninyo sa Lunes i-release ng 2:00.
Abunuhan ninyo muna. Bibigyan ka nila."’[2]
Initially, complainant asseverated in her
sworn letter-complaint that Judge Bautista often solicited gifts and other
considerations in exchange for a favorable judgment. In her subsequent
testimony, however, she radically contradicted herself.
Concluding his report, the Investigating
Justice held:
"WHEREFORE,
it is most respectfully recommended that respondent Judge Jaime F. Bautista be
exonerated of the administrative charge proffered against him with the
ADMONITION that he should be more discreet in his actuations; while respondent
Deputy Sheriff Jaime T. Montes be declared guilty of gross misconduct and
suspended for a period of three (3) months without pay, with a stern warning
that any further infraction of the Rules of Court shall be dealt with more
severely."[3]
Like the Investigating Justice, this Court
is not persuaded that the supposed grave misconduct imputed on respondent
judge, i.e., the demand for money in consideration of a favorable action
by him, can be inferred from the attendant circumstances, particularly in the
light of the admission of complainant during the investigation that she herself
would not be in any position to substantiate the charges against the Judge and
that she has merely relied on her uncle who instigated the filing of the
complaint. Indeed, it is apparent that complainant has not been a privy to
whatever might have ensued between respondent Judge and her deceased uncle,
Avelino Joaquin, a co-owner of the premises subject of the ejectment case. Esmsc
Respondent Judge, nevertheless, cannot be
said to be entirely blameless. His actuations have been less than circumspect.
He should have kept himself free from any appearance of impropriety and should
have endeavored to distance himself from any act liable to create an impression
of indecorum. A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as
personal conduct, a price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in
the judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the
performance of judicial duties but in all his activities, whether in his public
or private life. He must conduct himself in a manner that gives no ground for
reproach.[4]
In the case of respondent sheriff, however,
the records would sustain the penalty recommended by the Investigating Justice.
The sheriff failed to require the plaintiffs in the ejectment case to deposit
with the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff the duly approved estimated
expenses. He neither issued any official receipt for the amounts he had
collected from the plaintiffs or demanded a corresponding receipt for each
disbursement he had made nor timely submitted a proper liquidation thereof. The
case would bear striking resemblance to the case of Ong vs. Meregildo[5] where this Court held: Esm
"Respondent
Sheriffs unilaterally and repeatedly demanding sums of money from a
party-litigant purportedly to defray expenses of execution, without obtaining
the approval of the trial court for such purported expense and without
rendering to that court an accounting thereof, in effect constituted dishonesty
and extortion. That conduct, therefore, fell too far short of the required
standards of public service. Such conduct is threatening to the very existence
of the system of administration of justice."
Respondent sheriff ignored the procedures
laid down in the second paragraph of Section 9, Rule 141, of the Rules of
Court, providing thus: Chief
"In addition
to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court,
preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving
or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or
seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards' fees,
warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject
to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the
interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of
court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff
assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period
for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to
the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy
sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as
costs against the judgment debtor."
Good faith on the part of respondent
sheriff, or lack of it, in proceeding to properly execute his mandate would be
of no moment, for he is chargeable with the knowledge that being the officer of
the court tasked therefor, it behooves him to make due compliances. He is
expected to live up to the exacting standards of his office and his conduct
must at all times be characterized by rectitude and forthrightness and so above
suspicion and mistrust as well. Jksm
WHEREFORE, respondent judge JAIME F. BAUTISTA is EXONERATED of
the administrative charge against him with the ADMONITION that he should be
more discreet and mindful in his every conduct, whether personal or related to
his judicial function. Respondent Deputy Sheriff JAIME T. MONTES is FOUND
GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED for a period of three months,
without pay, with a stern warning that any further infraction by him shall be
dealt with severely.
SO ORDERED. Â h Y
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Purisima J., abroad-no part.