SECOND DIVISION
ADELAIDA ESCOBAR A.M. NO.
P-04-1786
VDA. DE LOPEZ, (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
02-1341-P)
Complainant,
Present:
PUNO, J.,
- versus - Chairman,
*SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
**
AZCUNA, and
ATTY. ANALIZA M. LUNA, GARCIA,
JJ.
CLERK OF COURT, AND
SHERIFF IV VICTOR R. Promulgated:
HERNANDEZ, BOTH OF RTC,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Clerk of Court Atty. Analiza M.
Luna and Sheriff IV Victor R. Hernandez, both of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of
The facts as culled from the records show that complainant Vda. de Lopez, together with her co-plaintiffs, filed a
complaint for easement of right of way with the RTC of Tagaytay
City entitled Vda. De Lopez v. P8,400,000.00). On
Some two (2) months later, on P150.00.
On
On
Sometime on
Complainant thus filed this case against Atty. Luna and
Sheriff Hernandez “[f]or dishonesty, by misleading [complainant] to believe
that the writ of execution was already made and issued to the sheriff for
implementation when in fact they delayed the same so that it will be overtaken by
a [TRO] to the prejudice and damage of the [complainant]; and x x x x
for demanding a consideration which they termed as ‘panggastos’
for the implementation of the writ of execution.”[1]
In her answer[2]
to the complaint, Atty. Luna contends that it was clear in complainant’s affidavit
that the complainant only followed up her case in January 2002 after the legal
fees of P150.00 for the issuance of the writ of execution were paid.[3] Atty. Luna also denied asking complainant for
any “panggastos”
since she will not be the one enforcing the writ.[4] Respondent sheriff, on the other hand,
maintains that he never talked to complainant personally except once over the
cellular telephone of Atty. Luna. He had
to schedule the service of writs as he is the only sheriff of the RTC of Tagaytay City which also caters to the towns of Silang, Amadeo, Alfonso, and Gen.
Emilio Aguinaldo compelling him to act on the court
processes on a “first come, first served basis.” Unfortunately, before he could serve the writ
in complainant’s case, a TRO was issued by the Court of Appeals.[5]
On
In his Report dated
Based on the foregoing circumstances it is quite clear
that both respondents, Clerk of Court Atty. Analiza
M. Luna and Sheriff Victor Hernandez, were negligent in the performance of
their duties.
I.
With respect to
Atty. Analiza Luna, the order of the Court is quite
very clear:
“…
accordingly, let a writ of execution of the decision of this Court dated
While it may be true that under Rule 141, Sec. 9, the
payment of One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P150.00) is necessary “for executing
a writ or process to place a party in possession of real estates,” the same is
not sine qua non requirement in the
issuance of the writ of execution. As
can be noted from the above cited rule, the same is addressed to “Sheriffs and
other persons serving processes.” Atty.
Luna should have at least notified and/or informed the complainant or her
lawyer of the necessity of the payment if she believed it to be so.
Further,
after her attention was called regarding the expiration of the Temporary Restraining
Order, with a Certification to that effect to boot, she could have at least
consulted the Presiding Judge if the writ of execution could already be
implemented. Regrettably, she also
failed to do the same.
II. Anent Sheriff Victor Hernandez, his delay in
implementing the writ is disappointing.
The rule is that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff it is
his duty to proceed with reasonable promptitude to execute it pursuant to its
mandate. His duty to do so is
ministerial and not directory, and one which he must accomplish as early as
possible (RCBC v. Noel Quilantang, A.M. No. P-01-1481,
When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff it is
his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with
reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He is to execute the order of the court
strictly to the letter. He has no
discretion, much less authority to grant a judgment debtor a grace period
within which to settle his obligation.
Respondent
sheriff’s explanation that he failed to immediately execute the writ because he
was busy and he is the only sheriff in the area is simply not a valid
reason. Suffice it to say that a sheriff
is responsible for the speedy and efficient implementation of writs of execution
(Casal v. Concepcion, Jr., 243 SCRA 339). [6]
Consequently, Judge Mangrobang recommended that Atty. Luna be penalized with a
suspension of one (1) month and a fine of P10,000.00, while Sheriff
Hernandez be reprimanded.
In a
Memorandum dated December 16, 2003, in compliance with the resolution of this
Court referring the instant case for evaluation, report and recommendation to
the Office of the Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P.
Perez, with the recommending approval of the Court Administrator, concurred
with the findings of the investigating judge but differed in the penalty to be
imposed and instead recommended that Atty. Luna be suspended for four (4)
months without pay for simple neglect of
duty while Sheriff Hernandez six (6) months without pay for dereliction of duty.[7]
We quote
with approval the evaluation of Deputy Court Administrator Perez that “the
issuance of writs of execution is part of the adjudicative support functions of
the clerk of court. There is nothing in
the Rules of Court which makes the payment of P150.00 docket fee sine qua non to the issuance of the
writ. In fact, the payment of the P150.00
is not for the issuance of the writ of execution but for the execution of the
‘writ of process to place a party in possession of real estates’ (Sec. 9[g], Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, as amended).
There was no need for complainant to pay P150.00 before a writ of
execution could issue. Thus, respondent
Atty. Luna was already in delay when she issued the writ of execution more than
two months after the issuance of the court order.”[8]
Clerks
of Court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and
sound administration of justice.[9] They are important functionaries in the
judiciary because they are primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient
service of all court processes and writs.[10] They keep the records and the seal of the
court, issue processes, enter judgment and orders, and give certified copies of
records upon request.[11] They are the hubs of adjudicative and
administrative orders, processes and like concerns. Their responsibilities are vital to the
prompt and sound administration of justice.
They cannot be allowed to slacken on their work. They should be officers of competence; they
should safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings; they should
uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice; and they
should help ensure that the cause of justice is done without delay.[12]
Clerks
of Court serve as models for their co-employees to act speedily and with
dispatch on their assigned task to avoid the clogging of cases in court and
thereby assist in the administration of justice without delay.[13] They serve as models for court employees in
their conduct and actuations.[14] Thus, they are expected to possess a high
degree of discipline and efficiency in the performance of their functions.[15]
We
likewise sustain the conclusions of Deputy Court Administrator Perez with
regard to respondent Sheriff Hernandez that “it was therefore not [Sheriff
Hernandez’s] fault that the writ was not implemented”[16]
at the first instance since under the Rules, the sheriff had thirty (30) days
to issue a return on the writ which was apparently issued on January 3, 2002, and
handed to him on January 8, 2002.[17] But before the thirty (30)-day period ended,
a TRO was issued by the Court of Appeals on
Well
settled is the rule that when writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their
ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them
in accordance with their mandate.[19] Their duty is purely ministerial; they are to
execute the order of the court strictly to the letter.[20] Their function is not discretionary.[21]
And, good faith on their part, or lack
of it, in proceedings to properly execute their mandate would be of no moment,
for they are chargeable with the knowledge that being officers of the court
tasked therefore, it behooves them to make due compliances.[22] Their unreasonable failure or neglect to
perform such function constitutes inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.[23] Sheriffs are officers of the court who serve
and execute writs addressed to them by the court, and who prepare and submit
returns of their proceedings.[24] As officers of the court, they must discharge
their duties with great care and diligence.[25] They have to perform faithfully and
accurately what is incumbent upon them[26]
and show at all times a high degree of professionalism in the performance of
their duties.[27]
As
public officers who are repositories of public trust, sheriffs have the
obligation to perform the duties of their office “honestly, faithfully and to
the best of their abilities.”[28] They must always hold inviolate and
invigorate the tenet that a public office is a public trust.[29] As court personnel, their conduct must be
beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[30] They must be circumspect and proper in their
behavior.[31] They must use reasonable skill and diligence
in performing their official duties, especially when the rights of individuals
may be jeopardized by neglect.[32] They are ranking officers of the court entrusted
with a fiduciary role.[33] They play an important part in the
administration of justice and are called upon to discharge their duties with
integrity, reasonable dispatch, due care and circumspection. Anything less is unacceptable.[34] This is because in serving the court’s writs
and processes and in implementing the orders of the court, sheriffs cannot
afford to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the
administration of justice.[35] Sheriffs are at the grassroots of our judicial
machinery and are indispensably in close contact with 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.[36]
All told, no position demands greater moral
righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than the judicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of
justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.[37] Clerks of Court, in particular, must be
individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are with
safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. This Court has consistently held that persons
involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest
standards of honesty and integrity in the public service.[38] It bears stressing that the behavior of
everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach
and circumscribed with a high degree of responsibility.[39] Their conduct must, at all times, not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be above suspicion.[40]
In view
of their exalted position as keepers of public faith, court personnel are
indeed saddled with a heavy burden of responsibility to the public.[41] Hence, they must thoroughly avoid any
impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official
duties.[42] For those who have fallen short of their
accountabilities, we have not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty.[43] We will not tolerate or condone any conduct
that violates the norms of public accountability and diminishes the faith of
the people in the judicial system. For,
we cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in
the administration of justice which would diminish or even just tend to
diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[44]
As this
Court has said more than once, execution is the fruit and end of the suit and
is the life of law.[45] A judgment that is left unexecuted is nothing
but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[46]
The
failure to issue and implement a writ of execution in appropriate cases may be
classified as simple neglect of duty which has been defined as the failure of
an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him. It signifies a disregard of a duty resulting
from carelessness or indifference.[47] It is censurable under the Civil Service
Rules. Under Section 52 B 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable
by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
Thus, in
Ayo v. Violago-Isnani,[48] we
found respondent clerk of court guilty of simple neglect of duty for causing
the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution and suspended him from
office for one (1) month and one (1) day.
In Alvarez v. Martin,[49] we
found a sheriff guilty of “failure/refusal to perform official duty” for
failing to implement a writ of execution and suspended him for three (3) months
without pay. In another case, we found
the same sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to implement writs
of execution in several civil cases and imposed against him a fine of P10,000.00.[50]
Consistent
with recent rulings and it appearing that this is the first infraction
committed by both respondents Clerk of Court Atty. Analiza
M. Luna and Sheriff Victor R. Hernandez, we find the suspension of three (3)
months sufficient penalty for simple neglect of duty.
IN
VIEW WHEREOF,
respondents ATTY. ANALIZA M. LUNA, Clerk of Court, and VICTOR R. HERNANDEZ,
Sheriff IV, both of the RTC of Tagaytay City, Branch
18, are found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty for failing to perform an
official duty, and are hereby SUSPENDED for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS each
without pay. They are STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
*
On sick leave.
** On leave.
[1] Affidavit of complainant, pars. 11.2
and 11.3, Rollo,
p. 3.
[2] Compliance of Atty. Luna, Rollo, p. 6.
[3]
[4]
[5] Compliance
of Sheriff Hernandez, Rollo,
p. 7.
[6] Report of Judge Mangrobang,
pp. 7-8.
[8]
[9] Toribio v. Ofilas, A.M. No. P-03-1714,
[10] Executive Judge Basilia
v. Judge Becamon, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1438,
[11] Neri v. Judge Hurtado, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1584,
[12] Noynay-Arlos
v. Conag, A.M. No. P-01-1503,
[13] Paa v. Remigio, A.M. No. P-1641,
[14] Noynay-Arlos
v. Conag, supra
at 12.
[15] Neri v. Judge Hurtado, supra at
11.
[16] Memorandum of Deputy Court Administrator
Jose P. Perez, dated
[17]
[18]
[19] Francisco v. Cruz, A.M. No. P-93-990 and
A.M. No. P-94-1042,
[20] Garcia v. Yared,
A.M. No. P-01-1492,
[21] Capacete v.
Arellano, A.M. No. P-03-1700,
[22] Chupungco v. Cabusao, A.M. No. P-03-1758,
[23] Aquino v. Lavadia, A.M. No. P-0101483,
[24] Villanueva-Fabella
v. Judge Lee, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1518,
[25] Vda. de Velayo v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-99-1332,
[26] Biglete v. Maputi, A.M. No. P-00-1407,
[27] Morta v. Judge
Bagagñan, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1513,
[28] Pecson v. Sicat, A.M. No. P-98-1280,
[29]
[30] Abanil v. Ramos,
Jr., A.M. No. P-98-1270,
[31] Tiongco v.
Molina, A.M. No. P-00-1373,
[32] Ibid.
[33] Lobregat v. Amoranto, A.M. No. P-04-1781,
[34]
[35] Abalde v. Roque, Jr., A.M. No. P-02-1643,
[36] Villanueva-Fabella
v. Judge Lee, supra at 24.
[37] Re: Memorandum dated
Charge, Office of Administrative Services, Office of
the Court Administrator on the Dishonesty and grave misconduct of Datu Alykhan T. Amilbangsa, Clerk of Court, Bongo, Tawi-Tawi,
Adm. Matter No. SCC-00-6-P,
[38] Caña v.
[39] Alpeche v. Bato, A.M. No. P-02-1592,
v. Flora, A.M. No. P-01-1480,
[40] Solidbank
Corporation v. Capoon, Jr., A.M. No. P-98-1266,
[41] Llamado v. Ravelo, A.M. No. P-92-747,
[42] Vda. de Velayo v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-99-1332,
[43] Report on the Financial Audit in RTC,
[44] Ang v. Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590,
[45] Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445,
[46] Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, supra
at 45; Junio
v. Egay-Eviota, A.M. No. P-92-746,
[47] Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, G.R. No. 140519,
[48] Supra
at 45.
[49] A.M. No. P-03-1724,
[50] Aquino v.
Martin, A.M. No. P-03-1703,