SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-00-1437. February 6, 2001]
ATTY. JULIAN B. SAN JUAN, JR., complainant, vs. ARIEL S. SANGALANG, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 114, Pasay City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DE
LEON, JR., J.:
On February 26, 1999, a
verified complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by Atty. Julian B. San
Juan, Jr. charging the respondent, Ariel S. Sangalang, Sheriff IV, Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 114, for Neglect of Duty, Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Complainant Atty. Julian
B. San Juan, Jr., is counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 96-1225
entitled, “Albina Sy vs. Armando Brillantes and Cecilia Brillantes” pending
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC, for brevity) of Pasay City, Branch 114. On September 29, 1997, the RTC issued a writ
of execution in the said case. On
October 1997, the complainant allegedly made repeated representations with
respondent sheriff for the immediate implementation of the writ but respondent
sheriff always made the excuse that he was preoccupied with the implementation
of other writs and processes issued by the trial court.
Realizing that a monetary
consideration was apparently needed to facilitate respondent sheriff’s
implementation of the writ of execution,
complainant intimated to respondent sheriff
that the latter would receive a “substantial amount” upon the immediate
implementation of the writ.
On December 4, 1998, at
around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, respondent sheriff together with the
complainant, complainant’s liaison officer named Eduardo Tibor, and a
locksmith, proceeded to the residence of defendant spouses Armando and Cecilia
Brillantes in Meycauayan, Bulacan, on board the complainant’s car, to implement
the writ. Complainant, however, had a prior commitment with the RTC of Manila,
Branch 45, at 10:00 o’clock in the morning, so he left the respondent sheriff,
respondent’s aide, and Tibor at the residence of the said defendant spouses.
Respondent sheriff was
unable to implement the writ, notwithstanding the fact that sufficient personal
properties of the defendants-spouses were within the premises, including but
not limited to, a Mitsubishi Station Wagon.
Complainant was informed by respondent sheriff through a telephone call
the next day that the writ could not be implemented because the Mitsubishi
Station Wagon was covered by a Deed of Sale in favor of a third person. However, respondent allegedly assured the
complainant that the writ would be implemented within a week as long as
complainant would pay in advance the sum of at least Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) as Sheriff’s fee.
Complainant promised to immediately attend to the payment of Sheriff’s
fee after the implementation of the writ.
Respondent sheriff nevertheless neglected, failed and/or refused to
implement the same.
On February 4, 1999,
complainant sent a letter to respondent sheriff requesting the latter to
implement the writ or at least to inform him of his inability to execute the
same so that he could file a motion for the appointment of a Special Sheriff
with the RTC. On February 15, 1999,
complainant was informed by respondent sheriff that the latter could no longer
implement the writ because his “identity has already been quite exposed to the
defendants and their relatives nearby and may not be able to effectively get
into their premises”. Hence,
complainant on February 18, 1999, filed with the RTC an “Ex-Parte Motion to
Appoint Special Sheriff.”
In his comment to the
complaint filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA, for short),
respondent sheriff denied that complainant made representations with him on
October 7, 1997 and personally requested for the implementation of the writ
since it was only on November 17, 1997 that a certain Roberto Advincula of J.B.
San Juan and Associates Law Office requested for a copy of the aforesaid writ.
Respondent sheriff
maintains that the complainant called him up during the latter part of November
1998 to inquire if there was a need to file a Motion for Issuance of an
Alias Writ of Execution inasmuch as a
considerable length of time had already elapsed from the time the original writ was issued. After verifying from the records that the
original writ could still be implemented, respondent sheriff tried to proceed
with the execution of the writ on December 4, 1998. Unfortunately, the execution of the writ failed to materialize.
Respondent sheriff claims
that he failed to proceed with the execution of the writ inasmuch as a Honda
Civic car was intentionally parked behind the Mitsubishi Station Wagon
rendering futile any attempt to push or maneuver it out of the garage; and that
the defendant spouses sternly warned respondent sheriff against an attempt to
get any personal properties from them; that relatives of defendant spouses as
well as males from nearby houses whom respondent termed, in his comment, as
“probably toughies”, likewise warned him, who was at the time allegedly alone
and unarmed, not to attempt to get the Mitsubishi Station Wagon since the same
was “too much to answer for the money judgment” amounting to a little more than
Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00) including attorney’s fees.
Respondent sheriff denied
complainant’s allegation that he was reluctant to implement writ without
receiving a “substantial amount.” Respondent sheriff claims that he even paid
for the implementation fee of the writ with the Clerk of Court of the RTC of
Pasay City by using his personal money.
Respondent said that when they were already at Meycauayan, Bulacan,
complainant told him in confidence that he had already forgotten about the need
for the enforcement of the writ until his client reminded him about it.
Respondent sheriff
further explained that the reason why he had some reservations in
re-implementing the writ was because he may not effectively gain access to the
defendant spouses’ premises since they already knew him and would then have the
chance to conceal their properties.
Respondent sheriff stated that
in any event, upon motion of complainant, the RTC of Pasay, Branch 114,
had already issued an Order dated February 19, 1999 designating a Special
Sheriff for the enforcement of the alias writ of execution.
The OCA found respondent
sheriff’s contention untenable. In his
Memorandum dated September 15, 2000, Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo
stated that it took respondent sheriff more than a year before serving the writ
to the defendant spouses and hence failed to execute the writ with considerable
dispatch resulting in a delay in the administration of justice. Citing the case of Vda. De Tisado vs.
Tablizo,[1] the OCA said that a Deputy Sheriff “is a
frontline representative of the justice system in the country” and therefore
“if he shows fear, or worse, is cowed by mere threats from enforcing the
legitimate orders of courts, then by his cowardly act, he diminishes the
judiciary”. The OCA further noted that
respondent sheriff was in fact accompanied by an aide and the complainant’s
liaison officer and hence, together, they could have taken the necessary steps
to implement the court’s orders fully, if not by attaching the Mitsubishi
Wagon, then by levying and taking the other personal properties of the
defendant spouses.
The OCA, however, found
no sufficient basis to hold respondent sheriff liable on the charge
of misconduct and/or conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service arising from complainant’s
allegation that respondent sheriff demanded the sum of P10,000.00 as sheriff’s
fee to be paid in advance.
The OCA, thus, made the
recommendation that:
a) the instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED as an administrative matter; and
b) respondent be FINED in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
The OCA noted that while
the penalty meted by this Court on the Sheriff in the Tablizo case was
suspension of six (6) months without pay, a fine of P3,000.00 on herein
respondent sheriff would suffice inasmuch as this is only the first offense of
the respondent sheriff.
We agree with the
findings of the OCA but not as to the amount of fine recommended.
Sheriffs play an
important part in the administration of justice, because they are tasked to
execute the final judgment of courts.
If not enforced, such decisions are empty victories on the part of the prevailing parties.[2] As observed by the OCA, it took respondent
sheriff more than a year to implement the writ of execution which should have
been done within sixty (60) days from his receipt thereof. While respondent sheriff lays the blame on
complainant for such delay, his subsequent act of failing to implement the writ
on December 4, 1997 for the simple reason that he was allegedly sternly warned
by defendant spouses as well as by some male toughies in the neighborhood not
to attempt to levy and take any personal properties of the defendants, is
inexcusable. Contrary to his
allegations, respondent was not alone at the time because he was with an aide
and the complainant’s liaison officer.
Indeed, as stated by the OCA, together, the three (3) men could have
taken the necessary steps to have the writ implemented. Respondent sheriff, however, neglected and
refrained from discharging his duties at the very first instance when he was
allegedly warned by defendant spouses from enforcing the writ. Respondent sheriff’s explanation regarding
his “reservations in re-implementing the writ” is shallow and inexcusable. Respondent sheriff’s negligence and
reluctance to follow through and implement the writ on the pretext that he
might not be able to effectively gain access to the premises of defendant
spouses since they already knew him and could probably conceal their personal
properties, speaks of a lack of responsibility and dedication on his part to
discharge his duties as sheriff.
Besides, he failed to submit to the trial court his actions taken on or
his proceedings on the writ “every thirty (30) days from the date of receipt
hereof,” as directed explicitly in that writ of execution. The writ of execution is “returnable to the
clerk or judge of the court issuing it … not more than sixty (60) days after
its receipt” by the sheriff “who must set forth in writing on its back the
whole of his proceedings by virtue thereof.” (Sec. 11, Rule 39).
In the aforecited case of
Vda. De Tisado vs. Tablizo we ruled that
A deputy sheriff is a
frontline representative of the justice system in this country. If he shows fear, or worse, is cowed by mere
threats from enforcing the legitimate orders of courts, then by his cowardly
act, he diminishes the judiciary. He
erodes the faith and trust of the citizenry in the ability and capacity of the
courts to settle disputes and to safeguard their rights. Specifically, he breaches his sworn duty to
uphold the majesty of the law and the integrity of the justice of justice
system.[3]
A Sheriff should exert
every effort and, indeed, consider it his bounden duty to see to it that the
final stage in the litigation process, namely, that of execution of judgment,
is carried out in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of
justice.[4]
However, as regards the
other charge that respondent sheriff demanded that the sum of Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00) as Sheriff’s fee be paid in advance before implementing the
writ, We agree with the OCA’s findings that there is no sufficient evidence to
hold respondent sheriff liable therefor.
That particular charge is not substantiated by credible evidence on
record aside from the bare allegations of complainant. In the case of Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Bucoy[5] we stated that the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. In the case at
bar, it appears that respondent sheriff even advanced the payment of the
Sheriff’s fees for the writ with the Office of the Clerk of Court of Pasay City
as evidenced by O.R. Nos. 9361847[6] and 7669523.[7]
In sum, respondent
Sheriff is guilty only of the charge of neglect of duty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Sheriff IV Ariel S. Sangalang of
the RTC, Branch 114, Pasay City is
hereby adjudged guilty of neglect of duty and he is hereby fined in the
sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)
with the WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.