SECOND DIVISION
LETICIA S.A. RESURRECCION, A.M. No.
P-04-1783
Complainant, (formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1519-P)
Present:
PUNO,
J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA
and
GARCIA, JJ.
RUSTICO
I. IBUNA, JR., Sheriff IV,
Regional
Trial Court, Binangonan,
Rizal,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August
7, 2006
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I
O N
CORONA, J.:
In
an affidavit-complaint dated November 19, 2002, Leticia S.A. Resurreccion charged respondent Rustico
I. Ibuna, Jr., sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court
of Binangonan, Rizal, with
violation of RA 6713.[1]
Resurreccion alleged that she purchased from one Liberty Aralar bighead carp fingerlings worth P450,000 which she paid in full. On November 8, 2002, respondent
sheriff wrote, for and in behalf of Aralar, a letter demanding
payment of about P250,000 that complainant
allegedly still owed Aralar. Complainant claimed that
Ibuna used his office to harass her.
Respondent
denied the allegations against him. He denied harassing complainant but
admitted preparing the letter and personally serving it on her. He explained
that Aralar sought his assistance on the matter and
he helped her without getting anything in return. He pointed out that, instead
of being condemned for what he did, he should be “commended for an exemplary
act.”
Quoting the provisions of RA 6713,
Section 5 (d)[2]
and Section 4 (e),[3]
he claimed that public officials and employees must attend to anyone who wants
to avail himself of the services of their office and must, at all times, act
promptly and expeditiously. He added that in his 19 years of government
service, this was the first time he was slapped with an administrative
complaint.
The
complaint was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for
investigation, report and recommendation. In its report dated July 3, 2003,[4]
the OCA found that respondent sheriff acted beyond the scope of his office when
he prepared the demand letter. The OCA
declared that respondent had no business giving counsel to parties and
preparing demand letters, which was often done in anticipation of litigation.
According to the OCA, the job rightly pertained only to persons or
professionals engaged in the private practice of law. Thus, the OCA found respondent guilty of
conduct unbecoming of his office, a light offense, and recommended:
[T]hat the present administrative complaint be re-docketed
as a regular administrative matter and that respondent sheriff, Rustico I. Ibuna, Jr., be REPRIMANDED
for conduct unbecoming his office with a WARNING that the commission of
the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.[5]
We disagree.
Respondent’s
act constituted misconduct which was not a light offense. Indeed,
respondent sheriff went way beyond the scope of his authority when he prepared
the demand letter and served it personally on complainant. The preparation of a
demand letter is not one of the sheriff’s duties and functions set forth in the
2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, particularly Chapter VI, Section D
(2.5.1):
2.1.5.1 Serves and/or executes all writs and processes of the Courts and other agencies, both local or
foreign;
2.1.5.2 Keeps
custody of attached properties or goods;
2.1.5.3 Maintains his own record books on writs of execution, writs of attachment, writs of replevin, writs of injunction, and all other processes executed by him;
2.1.5.4 Submits periodic reports to the Clerk of Court;
2.1.5.5 Does
related tasks and performs other duties that may be assigned by the Executive
Judge and/or Clerk of Court.
What respondent did was definitely
not included in the foregoing enumeration. Worse, he used his position to advance the
interests of one person over that of another by acting as “counsel” and
collecting agent for Aralar. He was oblivious to the fact that the misunderstanding
between Aralar and complainant could have reached the
court of which he was an employee. The
integrity of the court could have thus been compromised.
The silliness of respondent’s defense
that he was merely extending “free public assistance” to Aralar
stretches our patience to the limit. His invocation of RA 6713 was completely
wrong, considering that these provisions referred to services offered by the
office and alluded to public officials and employees exercising
their duties within the ambit of their authority. Here, what respondent
did was neither a service of his office nor done within the ambit of his
authority.
Respondent proudly heralds his 19
years of “unblemished” government service yet is totally ignorant of the fact
that, as a public official, he ought to have conducted himself in a manner that
was beyond suspicion and reproach. By preparing the demand letter which he served
personally and in a harassing manner on complainant, respondent compromised the
integrity of his office and brought it to disrepute.
WHEREFORE, Rustico
I. Ibuna, Jr., sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, is hereby
found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of his office and is
hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months, with a stern warning
that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt
with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
[1] An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, to Uphold the Time-Honored Principle of Public Office Being a Public Trust, Granting Incentives and Rewards for Exemplary Service, Enumerating Prohibited Acts and Transactions and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof and for Other Purposes.
[2] Duties of Public Officials.
[3] Norms of Conduct of Public Officer.
[4] Rollo, pp. 22-24.
[5] Id., p. 24.