EN BANC
JUDGE
JACINTO C. GONZALES, A.M. No. P-07-2396
MTCC,
Branch 2,
Complainant,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
- versus -
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
REWEL P. CERENIO, AZCUNA,
Sheriff III, MTCC, Branch 2,
TINGA,
Respondent. VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
and.
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
Per Curiam:
This resolves the pending administrative matter
concerning respondent Rewel P. Cerenio,
Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court for Cities (MTCC) of
In a Letter-complaint dated
Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court dated
On
As stated in Judge Dilag’s
IRR, the parties agreed on the following facts:
1.
That
respondent Rewell Cerenio
was duly appointed as Sheriff III of MTCC, Branch 2, of
2.
That
Judge Jacinto Gonzales is the incumbent Judge of Branch 2[,] having been
appointed on
3.
That
witness Annabelle Garcia is the incumbent Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 2,
MTCC, having been appointed on
4.
That
prior to the appointment of Judge Jacinto Gonzales, Judge Merinissa
Ligaya acted as Presiding Judge of Branch 2, Judge
Jaime Dojillo and Judge Tita
Alisuag were appointed as Pairing Judge(s) of MTCC,
Branch 2.[5]
The relevant facts, as testified to by
complainant judge and summarized in the IRR, are as follows:
Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales, complainant,
testified that he assumed office as Presiding Judge of MTCC, Branch 2, Olongapo City on December 5, 2005. During briefing conducted by his branch clerk
of court, Annabelle F. Garcia, Judge Gonzales was informed, among other things,
of the absences without leave by branch sheriff Rewel
Cerenio who was recommended to be dropped from the
rolls by Pairing Judge Merinissa O. Ligaya. On
latter a period of one (1) week to
submit the returns of the unaccounted writs of execution which he accordingly
received. Allegedly, respondent failed
to comply with his commitment to submit the remaining unaccounted returns for
which reasons, he (Judge Gonzales) was constrained to relieve respondent from
his duties as branch sheriff effective April 17, 2006, and directed him to turn
over to the [B]ranch [C]lerk of Court all writs,
summons and notices in his possession.
Judge Gonzales further claimed that despite such directive, respondent
not only failed to comply with the Order, but thereafter, never reported for
work which thus, further constrained him to file the instant administrative
case against the respondent on
The specific factual issues are the following:
1. Whether or not respondent failed to
make returns of writ and other court processes;
2.
Whether or not respondent failed to account for the proceeds of the execution in Civil Cases No. 4991 and
5059; and
3.
Whether or not respondent committed irregularities in the handling of
his Daily Time Records (DTRs) such as punching out his DTRs
without reporting to office, punching out his DTRs in
the morning and never coming back in the afternoon, and non-submission of his DTRs on time.
After evaluating
the documentary and testimonial evidence of
both parties, the investigating judge arrived at the following findings:
1.
On the issue of unreturned writs
of execution, respondent submitted the return on the writs only after his
meeting with Judge Gonzales on
[c]lerk-in-charge
of civil docket admitted on cross-examination that as of the time she testified
in his investigation, respondent has returned 22 writs of execution leaving 32
unaccounted writs of execution (Page 35[,] tsn
Section 14[,] Rule 39 of the Rules on
Civil Procedure specifically requires that:
“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
thereof. x x x”
Considering
that the writs of execution issued in the cases listed in Exhibit “A-9” which
appears to have been received by respondent for service dates back to the year
1990, delay in the service of twenty-two (22) and non-service of the rest of
the writs constitutes (sic) clear violation of the mandatory provision of the aforequoted rules.
2. On the issue of non-service of
notices of hearing in Civil Case No. 6072 entitled Ana Famisan
[v.] Sylvia Lescano, and Civil Case No. 4128 entitled
Lee [v.] Rivero, record shows that [the] corresponding
notices were referred to the respondent for service as early as
3. In the case of Lonzame [v.] Pantig, Civil Case
No. 4991 where the judgment amount is P21,000.00 more or less,
record shows that respondent received on various dates the total amount of P16,000.00
from defendant Pantig. He[,] however, applied the
amount of P6,000.00 as sheriff’s expenses, the amount of P5,000.00
she (sic) gave to Mrs. Lonzame, the plaintiff, and
the amount of P5,000.00 she (sic) gave to Mrs. Garcia. Such act of
respondent is anomalous to say the least. Section 9[,] Rule 141 of the Rules on
Civil Procedure details the legal fees and sheriff’s expenses that can be
assessed on account of the service of the writ of execution and the amount
charged as sheriff’s expenses by the respondent in this case in relation to the
judgment amount appears to be exorbitant. There is also indication here that
respondent did not observe the procedure required under the Rules regarding
execution of judgments for money. (Sec. 9, Rule 39[,] Rules of Civil
Procedure).
4. With respect to Civil Case No.
5059 entitled[,] Rural Bank of Zambales [v.] Sotelo, respondent’s claim that he returned the amount
of P25,000.00 the day after he received the same from Mr. Sotelo is not supported by the evidence on record.
Respondent was not able to produce a receipt that he returned the amount of P25,000.00
to the defendant Sotelo. His allegation that the
parties have already settled lacks proof as he failed to show evidence of
settlement between the parties. (Pages 41-42[,] tsn[,]
P25,000.00
to Sotelo, a day after he received the amount from
said Mr. Sotelo is demolished by the fact that Sotelo’s lawyer, Atty. Gonzales[,] wrote a letter dated
April 1, 2004[,] claiming that Sotelo gave the amount
of P25,000.00 as partial payment of judgment amount on April 4, 2003, or
a year before the letter. The letter, (Exhibit “A-14”), which was addressed to
the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch II, MTCC, also requested that respondent be
directed to deliver the amount of P25,000.00 to the lawyer’s law office within
(3) three days from receipt thereof. If it is true, as claimed by respondent,
that he had returned the amount of P25,000.00 to defendant Sotelo the day after the latter gave the amount to him, why
would Sotelo’s lawyer, Atty. Gonzales, still ask the
respondent to return the money the latter received from his client.
Respondent’s failure to support his claim that he returned the money to
defendant Sotelo or that there was subsequent
settlement between Rural Bank of Zambales and Sotelo certainly renders his defense untenable.
5. On the issue of respondent’s
alleged frequent unauthorized absence which apparently relates to the question
as to whether or not respondent reported to the office after punching of DTRs, this investigator defers to the recommendation of
the Court Administrator dated 6 November 2006 pertinent portion of which is
hereby quoted. Thus-
“Despite
the palpably strong indication of respondent’s guilt relative to habitual
absenteeism, we refrain from imposing upon him administrative sanctions this
early.”
6. On the other issue of misconduct
arising from an alleged trespassing incident involving one Emma Caroc as well as the issue of insubordination, the investigator notes the failure of
the complainant to substantiate the allegations of misconduct and
insubordination against the herein respondent.
There was no showing that the act of trespassing was intentionally done
by respondent to violate the law; neither was it established that respondent
deliberately ignored orders from his supervisor to receive memorandum.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, this investigator submits the following findings:
1. On the issue of failure to make returns of
writs of execution in certain cases, respondent is found liable for violation of [S]ection 14[,] Rule 39 of the Rules on Civil Procedure;
2. On the issue of non-service of notices of hearing in certain cases
resulting to the unnecessary postponement of scheduled hearings, respondent is likewise found liable;
3. On the issue of respondent’s failure to account for the proceeds of
writs of execution in certain cases, the respondent is likewise found liable for [v]iolation of Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules on Civil
Procedure.[7]
The investigating judge then recommended a penalty of
six (6) months suspension without pay.
We agree with the findings of the investigating judge
but not his recommended penalty. The gravity and number of offenses, as well as
the repetitiveness of the violations, committed by respondent starkly call for the
most severe penalty.
Failure to make a return makes a sheriff guilty of
malicious nonfeasance warranting dismissal.[8] In
Teresa T. Gonzales La’O & Co., Inc. v. Hatab[9]
the Court emphasized the importance of the sheriffs’ role for the efficient
administration of justice and the manner in which they are to execute their
duties, to wit:
x x
x They (sheriffs) are tasked to execute final
judgments of courts. If not enforced, such decisions are empty victories of the
prevailing parties. They must therefore comply with their mandated ministerial
duty to implement writs promptly and expeditiously. As agents of the law,
sheriffs 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 order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their
office and the efficient administration of justice.[10]
In the instant case, respondent failed to make a
return of not one (1) but fifty-four (54) writs of execution. Pending investigation, he was able to return
twenty-two of these writs. However, he could not account for the remaining
thirty-two (32) writs. Many of the 54 writs
of execution were issued as early as 1990 but respondent made an effort to account for them only in 2006 during the
investigation. Thus, it is not entirely
baseless to conclude that had no investigation been conducted, respondent have simply
left
the writs of
execution in a state of limbo, to the obvious
detriment of the litigants who, in turn, may be constrained to condemn the whole judicial system.
Section 14 of Rule 39 provides the procedure to be
followed by a sheriff in the execution of judgments, to wit:
SEC. 14. Return of writ of execution. — x x x 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 x x x 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 of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the
court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
It is mandatory, therefore, for the sheriff to
execute the judgment and make a return on the writ of execution within the
period provided by the Rules of Court.
With respect to partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs, the sheriff
must make periodic reports in accordance with Rule 39 Sec. 14. Such periodic reporting on the status of the
writs must be done by the sheriff regularly and consistently every thirty days
until they are returned fully satisfied.[11] In the instant case, there is no showing that respondent had taken the trouble to comply with this
duty.
Respondent’s infractions do not involve the writs of
execution only. He also failed to serve
notices of hearing which caused postponements
and unnecessary delay in
the cases
involved. The
acts and omissions of respondent contravene his obligation as sheriff to
discharge his duties with integrity, reasonable dispatch, due care and
circumspection.[12]
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.[13]
The investigating judge also found that in a civil
case[14]
where there was a judgment amount for P21,000.00, more or less, respondent received from defendant therein the amount of
P16,000.00. Of this amount, respondent applied P6,000.00 as
sheriff’s expenses, gave to the plaintiff therein P5,000.00, and gave the
remaining P5,000.00 to Ms. Garcia, the Clerk of Court. As correctly
pointed out by the investigating judge, Rule 141 Sec. 9 details the legal fees
and sheriff’s expenses but the amount charged by respondent for his expenses was exorbitant in relation
to the judgment amount.
Moreover, Section 9, Rule 141 provides that a party
requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall
pay the expenses of the sheriff and/or other persons serving or executing
processes, in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of
the court. Upon approval of such
estimated expense, the requesting party should deposit the amount with the
clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to
the deputy sheriff assigned. Further, this same amount is subject to
liquidation within the same period for making a return, and any unspent amount
should be refunded to the party making the deposit.[15]
Evidently, this procedure was not observed by respondent.
Another charge against respondent is that he
allegedly failed to return to a defendant the amount of P25,000.00. Respondent claims that he has already returned
to the defendant the same amount the day after he received it. This claim was found by the investigation as
lacking in proof. Further, respondent’s defense was contradicted when
defendant’s lawyer sent a formal letter addressed to the Branch Clerk of Court
requesting respondent to return said amount to his (lawyer’s) office within
three days from receipt of the letter. Respondent’s action in this particular
instance constitutes dishonesty which is a grave offense under the Civil
Service Rules[16]
and warrants a dismissal.
With respect to respondent’s alleged frequent
unauthorized absences and irregularities in his DTRs,
the investigating judge did not make an official finding thereon. Prior to the
assignment of this case to the investigating judge, the OCA reviewed the
records pertinent to this case, among which are certified copies of respondent’s
bundy cards provided by the Office of Administrative
Services.[17]
It was the OCA’s
finding that respondent absented himself from work, without official or
approved leave, during the following days: September 13, 21 and 23 of 2005;
October 10, 11, 12, 26, 27 and 28, 2005; and November 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and
11, 2005. Clearly, respondent exceeded the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave
credits provided under the Administrative Code of 1997.[18]
Once more, respondent committed a grave offense under the Civil Service Rules.[19]
Lastly, the investigating judge considered the
allegation of insubordination and misconduct arising from an alleged
trespassing incident as unsubstantiated.
For all of respondent’s violations, a mere six-(6-)month
suspension is not commensurate. Respondent miserably failed to live up to the
high standards expected of sheriffs whose conduct, along with that of other
court personnel, mirrors the image of the court of justice.[20]
WHEREFORE, respondent Rewel
P. Cerenio, Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court
for Cities, Branch 2, Olongapo City, is hereby found
GUILTY of malicious nonfeasance, dishonesty, committing unauthorized absences and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and is hereby
DISMISSED from office, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued
leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.
SO ORDERED.
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice
Associate
Justice
|
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
MA.
ALICIA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice
|
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE
O. TINGA MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN
T. REYES
Associate Justice
[2]
[8]Benitez v. Acosta, 407 Phil. 687,
698 (2001); Tan v. Dela
Cruz, Jr., A.M. No. P-04-1892.
[9]386 Phil. 88, (2000).
[11]Aquino v. Martin, 458 Phil. 76, 83 (2003),
citing Concerned Citizen v. Torio, A.M. No. P-01-4190,
[12]Escobar vda. de Lopez v.
Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1786,
[13]Abalde v. Roque, Jr., A.M. No.
P-02-1643,
[18]Specifically, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
the Administrative Code of 1987, Rule XIV, Sec. 22 (q).
[19]Supra note 8 (Civil Service Rules) Sec. 52.A. par.
17.
[20]Vda. De Abellera v. Dalisay, A.M. No. P-87-100,