EN BANC
[A.M. No. P-00-1371.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP), complainant, vs. RUBEN S. NEQUINTO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 145, Makati City, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
At the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy
sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence, their
conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the
court, for the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the
conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the
judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the
imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good
name and standing as a temple of justice.[1]
The Case
Before the Court is an administrative complaint filed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (hereafter, DBP) against Sheriff Ruben S. Nequinto (hereafter, Sheriff Nequinto), Sheriff IV Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 145 for (a) dereliction of duty and violation of Administrative Circular No. 12 (Acting as special sheriff for a party litigant) in connection with the implementation of the writ of execution (pending appeal); (b) violation of the clear provisions of Sec. 9, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; (c) knowingly violating Sec. 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure; (d) grave abuse of authority; and (e) conduct prejudicial to the interests of the government and/or a government financial institution.
The Facts
On June 14, 1993, the Court appointed respondent Ruben S. Nequinto, Regional Trial Court Deputy Sheriff, Regional
Trial Court, Branch CXLV, Makati (now Sheriff IV,
Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 145) an to this
date has been with the Court for twenty-four (24) years.[2]
On
On
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finding merit in the motion for summary judgment, hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant, ordering the latter to pay the former:
“1. the sum of P19,998,400 as unpaid rentals inclusive of interest as 12% per annum as of 31 March 1995, plus interest at 12% per annum on the amount of P9,999,200 after 31 March 1995 until full payment of the principal;
“2. attorney’s fees equivalent to 20% of the amount claimed in the preceding paragraph;
“3. the costs.
“SO ORDERED.”
On
On
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court, finding the “Motion For Execution Pending Appeal” to be well-taken, hereby grants the same. Let a writ of execution issue accordingly upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P30 million, subject to the approval of the court.
“SO ORDERED.”
On
On
“TO: Special Sheriff RUBEN S. NEQUINTO
Regional Trial Court
“GREETINGS:
“WE COMMAND YOU that of the goods and chattels of DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES with address at DBP Building, Makati Avenue corner Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, Metro Manila, you cause to be made the following:
“1) the sum of P19,998,400 as unpaid rentals inclusive of interest at 12% per annum as of 31 March 1995, plus interest at 12% per annum on the amount of P9,999,200 after 31 March 1995 until full payment of the principal;
“2) attorney’s fees equivalent to 20% of the amount claimed in the preceding paragraph;
“3) the costs.
“together with your lawful fees for service of this execution all in money of the Philippines which plaintiff recovered in this Court on August 18, 1997 against the defendant and that you tender the same to said plaintiff aside from your own fees on this execution, and to like-wise return this writ into this Court Immediately thereafter with you proceedings indorsed thereon.
“But if sufficient personal property cannot be found whereof to satisfy this execution an lawful fees thereon, then you are commanded that of the lands and buildings of defendant you cause to be made the sums of money in the manner required buy law and the Rules of Court, and to make return of your proceedings with this Writ immediately thereafter.
We quote the Court Administrator’s narration of how respondent
Sheriff implemented the writ:[10]
“On
“After gaining entry into DBP’s premises, respondent went to the Cash Management Department and announced his threat to seal the Banks’ vault and to levy DBP’s computers and office equipment if his demand for payment is not complied with. Respondents Sheriff told Bank officials that the amount to be executed against DBP is P46,310,684.94 which amount greatly exceeds the one stated in the Writ of Execution.
“The lawyers of the Bank requested the respondent to give them time
to verify the Writ of Execution in his possession. The respondent sheriff was also informed that
DBP had not yet received any copy of the Order granting FPHC’s
motion for execution pending appeal.
They also called the Sheriff’s attention to the fact that the amount
sought to be enforced (P46,310,684.93)[11] does not correspond to the amount indicated
in the writ. Respondent was also shown a
copy of DBP’s own computation of the amount taking
into account the interests and costs.[12] Moreover,
respondent was advised that his manner of enforcing the writ (sealing the
Bank’s vault) will disrupt, if not paralyze the bank’s and its branches’
operations. However, despite the Bank’s
objections, respondent insisted on sealing the bank’s vault if he is not paid
in cash and threatened to forcibly seize any money he may possibly retrieve
from the teller’s cages. Because of the
respondent’s adamant insistence to seal the Bank’s vault, the Bank was
constrained, under protest, to issue a Manager’s Check for P10 Million to
respondent[13] and offered to the respondent its property
covered by TCT No. 196837 located in Sta. Cruz, Manila which has an appraised
value of P18,387,900.00 to be levied upon, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 39 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondent refused to accept the offer and insisted that he be paid in
cash.
“In spite of the said payment and offer of real property for levy,
respondent issued a “notice of Levy or Sale on Execution”[14] wherein
he made it appear that he was levying on certain personal properties of DBP
which he did not specifically describe but generally referred to as :
“fifteen (15) units Personal computers 386 MITAC, Samsung; One Hundred (100)
units office tables with chairs.”
Unknown to the complainant respondent also served notices of garnishment
of DBP’s deposits with the Land Bank of the
“In view of respondent’s unjustified rejection of DBP’s offer and patently abusive manner in implementing the
writ, complainant bank filed a “Motion for Approval of Supersedeas
Bond an for Holding in Abeyance the Implementation of the Writ of Execution and
Sale on Execution”[15] calling the attention of the Judge to the
irregularities in the proceedings of respondent. Respondent sheriff, on December 2, 1997,
proceeded to bank’s head office for the purpose of conducting the “sale” of the
alleged “levied properties” despite knowledge of DBP’s
Motion and the fact that respondent was served with a letter from he Bank’s
Chief Legal Counsel interposing vigorous objection to the scheduled sale on
execution.[16]
“In his “sheriff’s Report on Execution” dated 3 December 1997
respondent falsely made it appear that he was prevented from entering the
building of DBP.[17] In the
same Report, respondent willfully and deliberately concealed the fact
that the bank had issued a P10 Million check to him, that it had offered for
levy its real property valued at P18 Million and that he issued Writs of Garnishments
involving DBP’s deposits with the Land Bank of the
Philippines and other banks.”
On January 27, 1998, DBP through its Chief Legal Counsel, Atty.
Carlos R. Cruz filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court
(hereafter, OCA) an administrative complaint against Sheriff Nequinto praying that he be disciplinarily dealt with.[18]
On
On
On March 1, 2000, the Court resolved to docket the case as a regular administrative proceeding and
required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case
for resolution on the basis of the pleadings within ten (10) days from notice
hereof.[21]
On
On
Still respondent Sheriff Nequinto
failed to comply with the above resolution.[25]
On
To date, Sheriff Nequinto has not complied with the Court’s three resolutions.[27] Hence, we declare the case submitted for resolution.
The Court’s Ruling
We resolve to dismiss respondent Sheriff Nequinto from the service. He deliberately failed to follow the procedure on how to execute a money judgment prescribed in the Revised Rules of Court. Rule 39, Section 9, provides:
“Sec. 9 Execution of judgments for money, how enforced – (1) Immediate payment on demand – The officer shall enforce and execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ (underscoring ours)”
Rule 39, Section 14, further provides:
“Section 14 Return of writ of execution - The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefore. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.”
Respondent Sheriff Nequinto also denied DBP its option to choose which of its property may be levied upon, as provided for in Section 9 (b), Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court.
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of
justice. As agents of the law, they are
called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence
because in serving the court’s writs and processes and implementing its orders,
they can not afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and
the efficient administration of justice.[28]
As an officer of the court, Sheriff Nequinto
was obliged to conduct himself with propriety and restraint. He cannot make use of his public office to
oppress or abuse a party especially a sensitive financial institution like the
DBP. His conduct showed unjustified
braggadocio. He did not comply with the set
procedure in the rules. We quote the OCA’s evaluation with respect to this matter:[29]
“However, with regard to the failure of respondent to abide diligently with Sec. 6, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which provides that:
“SEC. 6 Officer’s return – Immediately after executing the order the officer must make a return thereon to the clerk of judge of the court from which the order issued, with a full statement of his proceedings under the order and a complete inventory of the property attached, together with any counter-bond given by the party against whom the attachment is issued, and serve a copy of any such counter-bond on the applicant or his lawyer”.
“Respondent therefore could not be unaware of such basic rule to
evade his positive duty. Crystal clear
in the Sheriff’s Return dated
Neither did Sheriff Nequinto mention that DBP offered its real property valued at P18 Million for levy. We find abusive and without legal basis his insistence on enforcing FPHC’s bloated computation of P46,310,684.93, as the judgment debt, instead of the amount of P19,998,400.00 stated in the writ.
For reasons only known to him, respondent Sheriff Nequinto was overzealous in implementing the writ of execution against DBP, a government financial institution impressed with public interest. He went outside the law when he threatened to seal the bank’s vault and to forcibly seize any money he may possibly retrieve from the teller’s cages, if he were not paid in cash the full amount demanded. He levied on sensitive computers of the bank threatening not only to disrupt but to collapse its operations.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Fuentes and Sheriff Paralisan,[30] the Court characterized such abuse in the implementation of a writ of execution as “grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service,” which deserve the penalty of dismissal from the service.
Respondent Sheriff Nequinto has not
even complied with three show cause orders of this court. His conduct was highhanded and arbitrary and
even defied the Supreme Court’s directives.
His corrupt and ulterior motives were self-evident.[31]
Sheriffs ought to perform their duties with utmost
responsibility, integrity, competence and loyalty, and with justice, lead
modest lives, and uphold public interest.[32]
In this case, respondent sheriff failed to observe the strict standards
required of all public officers and employees.[33]
He must remember that overbearing conduct can only bring their office into
disrepute and erode public respect.[34]
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Ruben S. Nequinto, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 145, guilty of grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service and hereby DISMISSES him from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except earned leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reinstatement and reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government including government owned and controlled corporations, particularly the DBP.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De
Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Vda.
de Abellara v. Dalisay,
335 Phil. 527, 530-531 (1997), quoted in Tan v. Dael,
335 SCRA 513, 520-521 (2000).
[2] Confidential Report
of the OCA, Rollo, pp. 42-46.
[3] Judge Teofilo L. Guadiz, Jr. presiding.
[4] Docketed as Civil
Case No. 96-1701. Rollo,
p. 17.
[5] Statement of Facts,
Administrative Matter for Agenda, Confidential Report of the OCA, Rollo, pp. 42-46.
[6] Administrative
Complaint, Order of the Trial Court, Annex “A”, Rollo,
pp. 12-15.
[7] Administrative
Complaint, Ex-Parte Motion for Appointment of Special
Sheriff, Annex “B”, Rollo, p. 16.
[8] Administrative
Complaint, Order of the Trial Court, Annex “C”, Rollo,
p. 17.
[9] Administrative
Complaint, Writ of Execution, Annex “D”, Rollo,
pp. 20-21.
[10] Confidential Report
of the OCA, Rollo, pp. 42-46.
[11] Administrative
Complaint, Computation of Accrued Interest for P30 million at 12% per annum
starting 12.1.86 to 11.26.97, Annex “E”, Rollo,
22.
[12] Administrative
Complaint, Annex “F”, Rollo, p. 23.
[13] Administrative Complaint,
Acknowledgement Receipt, Annex “G”, p. 24.
[14] Administrative
Complaint, Notice of Levy and/or
[15] Administrative
Complaint, Motion for Approval of supersedeas Bond
and to Hold in Abeyance the Implementation of the Writ of Execution and Sale on
Execution, Annex “J,” Rollo, pp. 27-30.
[16] Administrative
Complaint, Letter of December 1, 1997 from DBP Chief Legal Counsel to Sheriff Nequinto, Annex “K, “ Rollo,
pp. 31-32.
[17] Administrative
Complaint, Sheriff’s Report on Execution, Annex “L”, Rollo,
p. 33.
[18] Administrative
Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-11, p. 10.
[19] Rollo,
pp. 38-40.
[20] The OCA recommended
that (1) the instant case be re-docketed as an administrative matter; (2)
respondent be ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and (3) respondent be warned
that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely
(Confidential Report of the OCA, Rollo, pp.
42-46, at p.46).
[21] Rollo,
p. 47.
[22] Rollo,
p. 48.
[23] Requiring respondent
to manifest if he is willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of
the records on hand.
[24] Rollo,
p. 53.
[25] The period to comply
expired on
[26] Resolution of the
Court, Rollo, p. 54.
[27] Dated
[28] Teresa T. Gonzales La’O & Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Jadi
T. Hatab, 329 SCRA 646 (2000); Orlando T. Mendoza v. Sheriff
IV Robert M. Tuquero, and Sheriff IV Antonio V. Leano, Jr., A.M. NO. P-99-1343,
[29] Confidential Report
of the OCA, Rollo, p. 45.
[30] 317 Phil 604 (1995).
[31] See Rosanna Casalme v. Deputy Sheriff Marvin S. Rivera, 368
Phil. 370, 373 (1999).
[32] Section 2, Republic
Act No. 6713.
[33] Ong
v. Meregildo, 233 SCRA 632 (1994); GVM, Inc. v.
De Guzman, 227 SCRA 684 (1993).
[34] Mariano Hernandez v. Samuel Aribuabo, A.M. No. P-00-1439,