Republic of the
THIRD DIVISION
|
EMMANUEL
M. PATAWARAN, Complainant, - versus - REYNALDO
T. NEPOMUCENO, Deputy
Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 77, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. P-02-1655 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Before us
is an administrative complaint[1] dated
Complainant
alleges: he is the plaintiff in the above-entitled case which was decided in
his favor in a decision rendered on P25,000.00 saying that said amount is his usual price in
implementing writs of execution. Since
he is in dire need of recovering the large amount expended in prosecuting the
case, he had no other recourse but to give respondent the said amount. Subsequently, some personal properties, i.e.,
two vehicles, among others, were taken or seized from the defendants, but for
reasons known only to respondent, no sheriff's return was submitted to the
court despite the lapse of several months.
Worse, respondent defied the Order of the court to conduct a public
auction sale of the seized personal properties.
In his
Comment dated P199,936.46
which were accepted by complainant. On P150,000.00 as partial satisfaction of the judgment debt. Defendants' counsel sent a letter to him
offering the photocopying machine as the property to be levied and to deposit
with the Clerk of Court the amount of P150,000.00. On P200,000.00 as
payment of the judgment debt and incidental expenses and ordered him to release
the two levied vehicles after deposit is made.
Complainant's counsel filed a petition for certiorari with the P150,000.00, that he can proceed to levy on other properties of
the defendants. It is not true that he
demanded P25,000.00 from the complainant for
the enforcement of the writ. The truth
is, it was complainant himself who defrayed the
expenses in the implementation of the writ of execution as evidenced by the
Bill of Costs submitted by complainant's counsel to the MeTC. He strongly denies that he ever told
complainant that said amount of P25,000.00 is
his usual asking for enforcement of writs of execution. He failed to file his sheriff's return for
the alias writ of execution but did so on P216,000.00. Defendants will deposit the additional amount
of P16,000.00 with the MeTC
Clerk of Court, and after withdrawal thereof, the levied vehicles will be
released to the rightful owners.
In his
Reply dated P25,000.00 saying that he was the one
who actually gave the said amount to respondent. He also suspects that respondent exacted some
other amount from the defendants, the reason why he was delaying the
implementation of the supposed writ of execution. He says that there are other litigants who
can attest to respondent's illegal practice which is a menace to the judiciary.
On
In his
Report dated P200,000.00 which the defendants in
fact deposited later. Be that as it may,
Judge Rodriguez finds the respondent guilty of delay in filing the Sheriff's
Partial Return dated P5,000.00 fine. As
regards the allegation that respondent demanded and received from complainant
the amount of P25,000.00, the investigating
judge reports that the same is unsubstantiated.
In its
Resolution of
In its
Memorandum of
x x x x
We
agree with the findings of the investigating judge that respondent was
prevented by the orders of the trial court from proceeding with the public
auction of the seized properties. In the
order dated 5 October 1999, the trial court, among others, ordered the
respondent “to allow the defendants to choose properties belonging to them which
may be levied,” while in the order dated 28 December 1999, the court directed
him to release the two vehicles upon the deposit of P200,000.00 by the
defendants. Clearly, with these orders,
respondent cannot proceed with the auction sale. We are not unmindful that the sheriff, in the
performance of his duties, is deemed to know what is inherently right and
inherently wrong and is bound to discharge such duties with prudence, caution
and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their
affairs (Malmis
vs. Bunagbong, A.M. No. P-03-1721,
Nevertheless,
respondent is guilty of neglect of duty for his delay in submitting the
sheriff's return on the alias writ and for failure to make the periodic reports. Neglect of duty is the failure to give due
attention, especially to the performance of a task or duty, a designed refusal,
indifference or unwillingness to perform one's duty (Magallanes vs. Provincial
Board, 66 OG 7839). Records show that respondent enforced the
alias writ of execution on
Section
14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly mandates the manner in which a
writ of execution is to be returned to court, as well as the requisite reports
to be made by the sheriff or officer, should the judgment be returned
unsatisfied or only partially satisfied.
In any case, every 30 days until the full satisfaction of a judgment,
the sheriff or officer much make a periodic report to the court on the proceedings
taken in connection with the writ.
Section 14 reads:
Sec. 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 therefor. 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 of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and
copies thereof furnished the parties.[7]
The
submission of the return and periodic reports is not an empty requirement. It serves to update the court as to the
status of the execution and to give it an idea as to why the judgment was not
satisfied. It also provides insights for
the court as to how efficient court processes are after judgment has been
promulgated. The over-all purpose of the
requirement is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions (Benitez vs. Acosta, A.M. No. P-01-1473,
Sheriffs, a[s] public officers are repositories of public trust and
are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully
and to the best of their ability. They
are bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of their
official duties particularly where the rights of individuals may be jeopardized
by their neglect (Spouses Pecson vs. Sicat, Jr., 358 SCRA
606).
It must be borne in mind that the conduct required of court personnel
must be beyond reproach and must be always free from suspicion that may taint
the judiciary family to work hand in hand in restoring and upholding, rather
than destroying the integrity of the courts which they belong (Atty. Contreras vs. Miranco,
A.M. No. P-03-174,
Inasmuch
as respondent denied the accusation that he received from the complainant the
amount of P25,000 to facilitate the execution of the judgment,
the issue ultimately boils down to the credibility of both the complainant and
the respondent. The determination of
this issue is primarily lodged in the investigating judge inasmuch as he is in
a better position, he having heard them when they testified and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying (Rita
M. Melecio vs. Tyrone V. Tan, etc., A.M. No. MTJ-04-1566, 22 August 2005, citing Meneses
vs. Zaragoza, A.M. No. P-04-1768,
In
sum, [respondent] should be held liable for simple neglect of duty. Under CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, dated
IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is
respectfully recommended that Reynaldo T. Nepomuceno,
Deputy Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court,
We adopt the findings of the OCA except as to the recommended penalty.
This Court has pointed out, time and again, the heavy burden and responsibility court personnel are saddled with in view of their exalted positions as keepers of the public faith.[8] Any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must therefore be avoided.[9] Court personnel should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency and must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence.[10] Any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[11]
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as agents of the law high standards are expected of them.[12] Being ranking officers of the court and agents of the law, they must discharge their duties with great care and diligence.[13] It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest employee.[14] As such, the Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial agents or employees which would tend to or actually diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[15]
On
the charge that respondent asked P25,000.00
from complainant, we find the same to be bereft of merit. The charge is belied by the fact that a Bill
of Costs in enforcing the writ of execution[16]
was submitted by the complainant’s counsel to the MeTC.
Also, during the investigation hearing,[17] complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence that
he gave respondent P25,000.00 for the enforcement of the writ of execution. As aptly observed by the investigating judge,
the allegation was unsubstantiated by any other evidence. And considering that complainant is a
businessman for almost twenty years, it is implausible that he will let go of a
big amount as P25,000.00 without even knowing where the same will be expended and
without even noting the date when he parted with the money, which is contrary
to the normal course of business transactions.
As pointed out by the investigating judge, it is expected of a prudent
businessman to demand a receipt whenever he pays for something just as an ordinary
person does.
As the
Court held in Ebero v. Camposano,[21]
in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of
guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[22] Further, the complainant has the burden of
proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[23] The basic rule is that mere allegation is not
evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.[24]
There is neglect in the
performance of duty on the part of respondent when he failed to submit his
report on time.[26] Records show that
respondent failed to timely make a sheriff's return on the alias writ of
execution as required under Section 14, Rule 39, Rules of Civil Procedure as hereinbefore quoted. Respondent
admitted that his failure was due to oversight and the fact that when
defendants filed an omnibus motion questioning the levy, the court was already
informed of the proceedings taken on the said alias writ of execution. Records also show that the alias writ was placed in the hands of
respondent on
Settled
is the rule that the duty of a sheriff is purely ministerial; he is to execute
the order of the court strictly to the letter.[29] His function is not discretionary.[30] In this case, respondent cannot be faulted for not
conducting the auction sale as he is without discretion absent any court order
requiring him to do so.
Under Sec. 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, simple neglect of duty is punishable by
suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first
offense. However, under Sec. 19, Rule
XIV, the penalty of fine, instead of suspension, may also be imposed in the
alternative. Considering the fact that
this is respondent’s first administrative offense and following the Court's ruling in several cases[31]
involving simple neglect of duty, we find the penalty of a fine in the amount
of P5,000.00, as recommended by the Investigating Judge, just and
reasonable.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court
finds REYNALDO T. NEPOMUCENO guilty
of simple neglect of duty and is fined
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS P5,000.00 with
the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts
in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Emphasis ours.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Villarico v. Javier, A.M.
No. P-04-1828,
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Rollo, pp. 161-170.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
A.M. No.
P-04-1792,
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] 450 Phil. 48 (2003).
[26]
[27] Rollo, p. 748.
[28]
[29]
Escober
Vda. de Lopez v. Luna,
A.M. No. P-04-1786,
[30]
[31] Balanag, Jr. v. Osita, 437 Phil. 452, 460
(2002); Casano v. Magat,
425 Phil. 356, 363 (2002); Tiongco v.
Molina, 416 Phil. 676, 684 (2001); Beso
v. Daguman, 380 Phil. 544, 555 (2000).