EN BANC
|
BENJAMIN T. HOFER, Complainant, |
A.M.
No. P-05-1990 |
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR., and
NACHURA, JJ.
TYRONE V. TAN, Sheriff IV,
Office of the Clerk of
Court, Promulgated:
Regional Trial Court,
Respondent. July 26,
2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Paulito R. Hofer (Paulito) was the
plaintiff in a civil case[1]
for ownership, payment of rentals, and recovery of possession filed against
the spouses Rufino and Dionesia
Pansacala (spouses Pansacala). On 26
September 2003, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Maramag, Bukidnon (trial
court) rendered judgment declaring Paulito as the owner of the property subject
of the civil case, and ordering the spouses Pansacala to vacate and return the
possession of the property. In the writ
of execution[2]
dated
I am submitting herewith my Partial Report in the execution of the Judgment in the above-entitled case.
That the undersigned repaired to the place where the subject matter of this case is situated for the purpose of enforcing the Writ of Execution issued in this case.
That arriving thereat, it was found out that the principal defendants were no longer occupying the subject land as they were now residing at Libongan, Lanao del Norte, but there were three privies of defendants, Sylvia Ludibese, Nantie Tresana and Panchito Eduave who were served with copies of the Writ of Execution last July 22, 2004 and were ordered to immediately vacate the said premises, but considering that we are experiencing bad weather condition and that these privies have small children, I gave them three (3) days from service of the Writ for them to personally vacate the said premises and to remove all their improvements from the subject land.
In case said defendants[’] privies failed to comply with said order, the extension of three (3) days, it is recommended to plaintiff’s counsel that a motion be filed for a Writ of Demolition of all improvements introduced on the subject matter of this case and that plaintiff should require the presence of the surveyor who conducted the relocation survey to pinpoint the meets and bounds of the conflicted land to avoid overlapping of boundaries.[3]
On 16 August
2004, Benjamin T. Hofer (complainant), representing Paulito, filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, an affidavit-complaint
(complaint) alleging:
That, respondent Tyrone V. Tan is an Assistant
Provincial Sheriff of the
That, Complainant is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1407-M entitled Hofer vs. Dionesia Pansacala, MTC of Maramag Bukidnon;
That, the MTC court has decided the case to eject the defendant, among other things;
That, on P15,000.00. (see Annex 1, receipt)[;]
That, there are three privies contained in the partial return of Respondent which he gave 3 days to vacate; [and]
That, respondent did not come back to finish his work in spite of repeated demands.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Executive RTC Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr[.] to compel respondent to do his duty and finish his job.[4]
In his answer and comment[5]
dated
Respondent alleged that he submitted a
partial report dated
In an Indorsement dated
In its Report[8]
dated P15,000.00
from the complainant to implement the writ of execution.” The OCA recommended that the case be
re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be held
liable for misconduct and fined P20,000.
In a Resolution dated
The Court issued a Resolution dated
On the charge of
inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, the Court
finds respondent not liable. “In administrative proceedings, the complainant
bears the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the
complaint. Substantial evidence means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.”[9]
In this case, complainant failed to
substantiate the allegation that respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty
or inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. Aside from the bare allegation in his
complaint that “respondent did not come back to finish his work in spite of
repeated demands,” complainant did not present any evidence to support the
charge. Complainant did not state when
respondent received a copy of the writ and when respondent was required to submit
his
return in
accordance with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.[10] Nor did complainant state when he made the
demands on respondent and the period of time respondent refused to perform his
duties. Even the OCA, in its Report, did
not mention anything about respondent’s alleged simple neglect of duty or
inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.
Moreover, in his answer, respondent
alleged that he performed his duties: (1) he went to the property several
times; (2) he served copies of the writ to the spouses Pansacala’s
daughter-in-law and privies; (3) he ordered the spouses Pansacala’s privies to
vacate the property; (4) he checked whether the privies had already vacated the
property; (5) he submitted a partial report to Paulito and his counsel; and (6)
he submitted an amended partial report to the trial court’s clerk of court, to
Paulito, and to the latter’s counsel.[11] He also sent a letter to the provincial
director of the Philippine National Police, requesting for assistance in the
enforcement of the writ.[12] Without substantial evidence to prove that
respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties, this Court cannot hold
him administratively liable.
The Court, however, finds respondent
liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. Given the nature of the offense and the fact that
respondent is not a first time offender, the Court finds the OCA’s recommended
penalty too light.
According
to complainant, respondent asked, and received, P15,000 from him.[13] To support this allegation, complainant
presented a receipt[14]
bearing respondent’s signature. In his
answer, respondent did not deny the fact that he demanded and received P15,000
from complainant. In fact, his answer
contained an itemized list of the alleged expenses incurred in the partial
enforcement of the writ, totalling P14,900. The expenses were as follows:
-
Hiring of motor vehicle - P1,000.00
- Honorarium of one police - 500.00
- Meals - 200.00
__________
P1,700.00
- Hiring of motor vehicle - 2,000.00
- Honorarium for 16 PNP
members of Don Carlos, & [sic]
Maramag, Buk. PNP Station
at P500.00 each -
8,000.00
__________
P10,000.00
The request of the undersigned for PNP assistance was only for eight (8) PNP members/escorts, but due to the reports of plaintiff’s farm laborers to the police authorities that the defendants will violently resist and were fully armed, the PNP Maramag Station, supported the Don Carlos Prov’l. Mobile Group peacekeeping force.
- Hiring of motor vehicle - 1,000.00
- Honorarium for two (2) PNP
escorts - 1,000.00
- Meals - 200.00
__________
P2,200.00
- Sheriff’s fees 1,000.00
-
TOTAL EXPENSES ---------------------[P15,000.00][15]
[sic]
Based on these facts, the OCA found
respondent guilty of misconduct.
Respondent completely ignored the procedure provided in the Rules of
Court when he demanded and received P15,000 from complainant. The
OCA stated:
Respondent erred when he personally received the amount of P15,000.00
from the complainant to implement the writ of execution.
x x x x
[T]he respondent sheriff did not give an estimated expenses [sic] in
serving the writ of execution to the interested party. Instead, he demanded and received from the
complainant P15,000.00 as expenses in implementing the writ of
execution. Respondent sheriff totally
disregarded the court’s authority to approve the expenses that may be incurred
in implementing the writ and the authority of the Clerk of Court to disburse to
him the amount that may be spent to effect the process, subject to his
liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court is the
recommendation that the instant IPI be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and respondent
be penalized to pay a fine in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
for misconduct with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.[16]
Indeed, respondent violated the
procedure laid down in Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court when he
demanded and received money directly from complainant. Section 10 provides in plain and clear terms
the procedure to be followed with regard to expenses in the execution of
writs. Section 10 states that:
With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guard’s fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. The liquidation shall be approved by the court. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor. (Emphasis supplied)
As provided in Section 10, before an
interested party pays the sheriff for the expenses, the sheriff should first
estimate the amount. This amount will
then have to be approved by the court.
Upon approval, the interested party shall deposit the amount with the
clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff who shall disburse the amount to
the sheriff assigned to execute the writ.
The amount disbursed is subject to liquidation. Any unspent amount shall be returned to the
party who made the deposit. Thereafter,
the sheriff shall submit a full report.[17] Put differently:
x x x [A] sheriff is guilty of violating the Rules if he fails to
observe the following: (1) preparing an estimate of expenses to be incurred in
executing the writ, for which he must seek the court’s approval; (2) rendering an accounting; and
(3) issuing an official receipt for the total amount he received from the
judgment debtor.[18]
In his answer, respondent attempted to
justify his actions by showing that he
used the money to defray the costs of the partial execution of the writ. Even assuming this were true, respondent
would still be liable. Respondent, as an
officer of the court and agent of the law, should be aware that there are
well-defined steps in the execution of writs.
A sheriff can only accept payment for sheriff’s fees as provided in
Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.[19] Acceptance of any other amount is improper,
even if it were to be applied for lawful purposes. As this Court held:
Good faith on the part of the sheriff, or lack of it, in proceeding to properly execute its mandate would be of no moment, for he is chargeable with the knowledge that being the officer of the court tasked therefor, it behooves him to make due compliances. In the implementation of a writ of execution, only the payment of sheriff’s fees may be received by sheriffs. They are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the best interests of the service because even assuming arguendo such payments were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes. In fact, even “reasonableness” of the amounts charged, collected and received by the sheriff is not a defense where the procedure laid down in [Section 10], Rule 141 of the Rules of Court has been clearly ignored. Only the payment of sheriff's fees can be lawfully received by a sheriff and the acceptance of any other amount is improper, even if it were to be applied for lawful purposes.[20] (Emphasis supplied)
Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any
payments from the parties in the course of the performance of their
duties. They cannot just unilaterally
demand sums of money from the parties without observing the proper procedural
steps.[21] In this case, respondent demanded and
received P15,000 directly from complainant without approval from the
trial court. The acquiescence of complainant to such expenses does not absolve
the respondent of his failure to secure the trial court’s prior approval.[22]
This Court condemns any conduct, on the
part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which violates the
norm of public accountability and diminishes public confidence in the
Judiciary.[23] Respondent, in the performance of his duties,
deviated from the lofty standards of integrity and prudence exacted from
officers of the court. It was highly
improper for him to demand and accept money from complainant.
Any amount received by sheriffs in
excess of the lawful fees allowed in Section 10 is an unlawful exaction. It constitutes unauthorized fees. This renders them liable for grave
misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. In Tan v. Paredes,[24]
we held that:
[A] sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps, otherwise, it would amount to dishonesty and extortion.
In this case, Sheriff
Paredes asked P10,000 from the plaintiffs to defray the expenses for the
implementation of the decision without any approval from the court. The acquiescence or consent of the plaintiffs
to such expenses does not absolve the sheriff for his failure to secure the
prior approval of the court concerning such expense. Moreover, although the plaintiffs gave P5,500
directly to sheriff, he failed to deposit with the court the amount received
from the plaintiffs. (Emphasis
supplied)
In De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza,[25]
we held that:
[R]espondent sheriff did not
deny receipt of P500.00 although he tried to explain, albeit unsatisfactorily,
that the same represented the legal fees for the service and execution of the
writ. Under [Section 10], Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court, the procedure for the execution of writs and other
processes are: first, the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses
to be incurred by him; second, he must obtain court approval for such
estimated expenses; third, the approved estimated expenses shall be
deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-officio
sheriff; fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the
executing sheriff; and fifth, the executing sheriff shall liquidate his
expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ. Any amount received by the sheriff in
excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction
which renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.
x x x As regards the P500.00, we agree with both the
investigating judge and the OCA that the amount exceeded the lawful fees
allowed by the Rules of Court. It
constitutes unauthorized fees and unlawful exaction which renders respondent
sheriff guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service.
Even granting that the
amount of P500.00 represented legal fees, still, respondent sheriff
failed to comply with the requirements under [Section 10], Rule 141. (Emphasis
supplied)
In Adoma v. Gatcheco,[26]
we held that:
[R]espondent sheriff totally disregarded the aforecited procedure. He failed to make and submit estimate of the sheriff’s expenses. The amounts received and demanded by him are therefore unauthorized fees. His acts of accepting and soliciting said monetary considerations make him liable not only for conduct unbecoming a court employee but also for grave misconduct and dishonesty. (Emphasis supplied)
And in Geolingo v. Albayda,[27]
this Court found the observations and recommendations of the OCA
well-taken. The OCA observed that:
Charging P5,000.00
for every shanty to be demolished in Civil Case No. 22511 and P15,000.00
in Civil Case No. 26374 for the service of the writ of execution without the
approval of the court constitutes grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service.
Although the sheriff, in the performance of his duties, is not precluded
from collecting additional sums from a requesting party, the same should be
subject to approval from the court as provided for in [Section 10] Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court. Before an interested
party pays the sheriff’s expenses, the latter should first estimate the amount
to be approved by the court. The
approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the
Clerk of Court and ex-officio sheriff who shall disburse the amount to
the executing sheriff. The latter shall
liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the
writ. (Abalde vs. Roque, Jr., 400
SCRA 210 [2003]) Any amount received
by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an
unlawful exaction and renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross
dishonesty (Alvares, Jr. vs. Martin, 411 SCRA 248 [2003]). Moreover, any unspent amount shall be
refunded to the party who made the deposit.
Respondent failed to
comply with the above requirement despite directives of the complainant
judge. He failed to explain why he
collected P5,000.00 per demolished shanty. This constitutes extortion. Moreover, his explanation regarding the P15,000.00
he collected for the service of the writ of execution in the case of Angelina
Pahila-Garrido vs. Damiana Daguno was not authorized by the court, hence,
illegal.[28]
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 52(A)(1) and (3)[29]
of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[30]
classify dishonesty and grave misconduct, respectively, as grave offenses
punishable by dismissal for the first offense.
Section 52(A)(20)[31]
classifies conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service as a
grave offense punishable by suspension of six
months and
one day to one year for the first offense.
Under Section 58,[32]
the penalty of dismissal carries with it the cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in the government service.
Section 53[33]
of the Civil Service Rules provides that, in the determination of the penalty
to be imposed, mitigating circumstances attendant to the commission of the
offense shall be considered. However,
respondent did not invoke, nor did the OCA find, any mitigating circumstance
favorable to respondent. Respondent is
not a first time offender. In Melecio
v. Tan,[34]
this Court found respondent guilty of misconduct and suspended him for six
months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will
be dealt with more severely. We stated
in Melecio that:
Indeed, respondent sheriff was grossly inefficient and guilty of misconduct in implementing the writ on April 16, 2003. He evicted the occupants without ascertaining whether the portion they occupy formed part of the litigated property or not. He was aware that there was uncertainty concerning the property occupied by the Manobos as he even recommended in his partial report that an ocular inspection be conducted. Yet he proceeded with the eviction without the benefit of the inspection to determine the exact boundaries. The unfortunate incident could have been avoided had the respondent sheriff observed due care and diligence in ascertaining the exact location of the property subject of the execution.
x x x x
Sheriff Tan not only gravely abused his authority in evicting the Manobos from the property; he also committed misconduct when he demolished the improvements thereon without securing a writ of demolition. As clearly provided under Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the sheriff must secure a special order of the court before he could destroy, demolish or remove the improvements on the property.
x x x x
We find respondent sheriff guilty of misconduct, which is any unlawful conduct of a person related to the administration of justice and prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. x x x
WHEREFORE, respondent Sheriff Tyrone V. Tan, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, is found GUILTY of misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.[35]
Aside from the instant case and the Melecio case, respondent has another administrative case[36]
for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties pending
before this Court. With two cases
decided against him, and another one pending, respondent has clearly
demonstrated his incorrigibility and unfitness to be in the service. In Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna,[37]
this Court said:
For those who have fallen short of their accountabilities, we have not
hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty.
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.[38]
Sheriffs are ranking officers of the
court. They play an important part in
the administration of justice — execution being the fruit and end of the suit,
and the life of the law. In view of
their exalted position as keepers of the public faith, their conduct should be
geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court.[39] Respondent miserably failed to live up to the
high standards required of sheriffs. His
impropriety subjected the image of the court to public suspicion and distrust.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent
Tyrone V. Tan, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
SO ORDERED.
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C.
GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
[1] Docketed as Civil Case No. 1407-M, entitled “Paulito R. Hofer v. Mr. and Mrs. Dionesia Pansacala.”
[2] Rollo, p. 8.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Pan v. Salamat, A.M. No.
P-03-1678,
[10] Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:
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 therefore. 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 promptly furnished the parties.
[11] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[16]
[17] Tan v. Paredes, A.M. No.
P-04-1789,
[18] Balanag, Jr. v. Osita, 437 Phil. 452, 458 (2002).
[19] Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS
and other persons serving processes. —
x x x x
(g) For
executing a writ or process to place a party in possession of real PROPERTY OR estates, THREE HUNDRED (P300.00)
PESOS per property.
[20] Bernabe v. Eguia, A.M. No.
P-03-1742,
[21] Tan v. Paredes, supra note 17 at 55.
[22]
[23] Danao v. Franco, Jr., supra note 17 at 520.
[25] A.M. No. P-03-1693,
[26] Supra note 17 at 304.
[27] A.M. No. P-02-1660,
[28]
[29] Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. ― Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
1. Dishonesty
1st offense – Dismissal
x x x x
3. Grave Misconduct
1st offense – Dismissal
[30] Promulgated by the Civil Service
Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated
[31] Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. ― Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
x x x x
20. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
1st offense – Suspension (6 mos. 1 day to 1 year)
2nd offense – Dismissal
[32] Section 58 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
Section
58. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties.
a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.
[33] Section 53 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
Section 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative Circumstances. ― In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered.
x x x x
Nevertheless, in the appreciation thereof, the same must be invoked or pleaded by the proper party, otherwise, said circumstances shall not be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. The Commission, however, in the interest of substantial justice may take and consider these circumstances.
[34] A.M. No. MTJ-04-1566, 22 August 2005, 467 SCRA 474.
[35] Id. at 480-482.
[36] A.M. No. P-05-1996, entitled “Estelito R. Marabe v. Tyrone Tan, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City.”
[37] A.M. No. P-04-1786, 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 265.
[38] Id. at 277-278.
[39] Id. at 275-278.