SECOND DIVISION
|
EDITHA S. SANTUYO, Complainant, -
versus - HERBERTO
R. BENITO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-05-1997
(Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 04-1963-P) Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August 3, 2006 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
GARCIA, J.:
This administrative
case stemmed from a VERIFIED COMPLAINT[1] dated
Complainant
is the attorney-in-fact of one of the plaintiffs in two separate actions for annulment
of sale, Civil Cases No. 90-2218 and No. 90-1506, of the RTC of Naga City,
Branch 27.
In both
cases, complainant obtained for her principals a favorable ruling from the Court
of Appeals (CA) in whose decision, of
On
March 8, 2004, or after the lapse of one year from the issuance of the possesory
writ, the trial court issued an order directing the respondent sheriff to
continue and complete the execution process and to place the complainant in possession
of the 1,200-square meter area of the property whereat stands a Caltex gasoline
station and a two-storey residential house which was being occupied by a
certain Amado Sanao.
According
to the complainant, the respondent sheriff failed to completely carry out the March
8, 2004 order of the trial court even after repeated follow-ups and despite his
having withdrawn from the court the following amounts:
·
P5,000.00 – for the “pakyaw” labor to haul, carry/transport effects, for cost of
hired jeepneys and other miscellaneous expenses, including respondent’s meals;
·
P16,300.00 – for payment of two (2)
days of labor of fifteen (15) persons and five (5) security personnel fencing
off the gasoline station and safeguarding the same; and
·
P36,000.00 – for the 3-day labor
costs of thirty (30) persons ejecting the people inside the house and bringing
out their belongings.
Complainant
accuses respondent of “charging unreasonable and exhorbitant sheriff’s fees
thru padded and imaginary charges.” Going into details, complainant averred
that the P5,000.00 for the “pakyaw” labor was spent by the respondent in
serving the writ of possession on a certain Raul Santos, former owner of the
subject premises who was neither its actual or present possessor nor the operator
of the gasoline station thereat. Complainant claimed that instead of performing
what the writ commanded him to do, the respondent, on his own volition and
without any travel order from or prior notice to the court nor to her, traveled
from Naga City to Manila, stayed in an undisclosed hotel for two (2) days in
Manila, incurred expenses for his meals and transportation, and thereafter
conveniently lost all the receipts and other documents supporting his
travel. To the complainant, the respondent’s
out-of-town trip was unnecessary, and actually a mere scheme resorted to by him
to justify his taking of her money.
Complainant
added that despite having withdrawn from the court the amount of P16,300.00
which was to be used as payment for the 2-day labor cost of the fifteen (15)
workers and five (5) security personnel, the respondent sheriff still failed to
turn over the premises to her, and that during the supposed execution, there
were less than ten (10) people to execute the writ, thereby compelling her to
hire three (3) additional carpenters and blue guards to assist in the process.
Worse,
so complainant claims, the respondent spent P36,000.00 for an independent
labor contractor who supplied the ejectment team, but accomplished nothing.
She assails such arrangement because the labor contractor is not
accountable to the court, aside from the fact that no other detail was given by
her as to how the said amount was spent.
She alleged that when she went to the premises on the second and third
days of the scheduled execution, she did not see a shadow of the supposed
thirty-man ejectment team.
Summing
up, complainant averred that she was thrice robbed by the respondent in the
total amount of P57,300.00, and insisted that the alleged accounting and
liquidation made by the respondent were merely fabricated to conceal his misappropriation of funds.
In his comment,[4]
the respondent sheriff claims that on P5,000.00 to cover the
sheriff’s incidental expenses. He allegedly
told the complainant that he could not officially turn over the premises
subject of the writ of possession because the writ was not yet served on
defendant Raul Santos. He even explained to the complainant that he could not
leave for P5,000.00, respondent alleged that he spent the money for his
expenses in serving the writ of possession to defendant Raul Santos.
According
to him, he actually left for
Plodding
on, respondent claims that he made due manifestations to the court for each of
his expected expenses which were all duly approved by the court through orders
directing the complainant to deposit the necessary amounts with the Office of
the Clerk of Court. Respondent insists that he rendered a liquidation and/or
accounting to the court. As regards the amount of P36,000.00, respondent
asserted that the same was actually paid to Mr. Rodolfo Segovia, the person who
provided the ejectment team. On
Further,
respondent explains that in the morning of
In her REPLY
TO THE COMMENT /ANSWER OF RESPONDENT,[6]
the complainant denied the imputation that it was thru her constant prodding
that respondent left for
At the
outset, the Court notes that the instant administrative complaint sprung from a
decision that had long become final and executory. The judgment sought to be executed was entered way
back on
As
aptly observed by the Court Administrator in his February 28, 2005 Report/
Recommendation,[7] respondent’s
explanations for the delay are suspicious and at best sketchy:
One, respondent reasoned
that he could not implement at once the writ of possession without first
serving a copy of the same to defendant Raul Santos who lives in Manila. This
is sophistry and is belied by the circumstances viz:
·
His
manifestation to the court dated
·
There
was no travel order for his supposed travel to
·
His
deviation from the standard procedure was unjustified, and he did not even have
the prudence to notify the court or immediately made his report about it as
mandated by the Rules;
·
He
submitted his liquidation report thereon only after more than one year, or on
·
His
own evidence discloses that his schedule for the month of March 2003 is already
full, with travel order for each day;
·
To
prove his travel to
Two, his subsequent
manifestation for sheriff’s expenses --- albeit basically for the same purpose
as the first --- more than tripled the amount in the first manifestation. Three,
there was no basis to pay the independent contractor in full since the task
contracted was actually halted. Four,
complainant has steadfastly remitted the proper amount as sheriff
expenses. This notwithstanding, and
despite a long period of time, respondent still failed to execute the writs to
completion. Five, Respondent’s query to the court of appeals relative to the
TRO is but another scheme to indirectly justify the delay. It was made only on
Not only
was there an unreasonable delay in the implementation of the writs of execution
and possession. Respondent also failed to satisfactorily justify the items for
the expenses he allegedly incurred in connection therewith.
In
Smith Bell and Co. v. Saur,[8]
the Court has made it clear that the
duty of sheriffs to promptly execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. Sheriffs
have no discretion on whether or not to implement it. There is no need for the litigants to
“follow-up” its implementation.
Sheriffs
play an important role in the administration of justice. They are tasked to execute final judgments of
the courts. If not enforced, such judgments
become empty victories for the prevailing party. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called
upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. In serving court
writs and processes and in implementing court orders, sheriffs cannot afford to
err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient
administration of justice.[9]
The
conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, are
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but above all, beyond suspicion.[10]
Here,
the respondent sheriff was clearly remiss in performing his ministerial duty of
implementing promptly and expeditiously the possessory writ issued by the
court. He was likewise tardy in the submission of his report relative thereto.
Accordingly,
the Court finds the respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, an offense which, under Section 23 (t) of the Civil
Service Law, carries the penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one day
to one (1) year, for the first offense.
WHEREFORE,
respondent, Sheriff Herberto Benito, is hereby adjudged GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
and is SUSPENDED for a period of SIX MONTHS without pay, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-8.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Adm. Matter No. P-1142,
[9] Teresa T. Gonzales Laó and Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Jadi T. Hatab, A.M.
No. P-99-1337,
[10] Neeland
v. Villanueva, A.M. No. P-99-1316,