Republic of the
THIRD DIVISION
Complainant, (Formerly
OCA IPI No. 05-2202-P)
Present:
- versus -
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
FERNANDO
P. RECACHO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
Cash Clerk and RODERICK D. CHICO-NAZARIO, and
ABAIGAR, Deputy Sheriff, NACHURA, JJ.
Metropolitan
Trial Court,
Branch
79, Las
Respondents. July 17, 2007
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Before the Court is a verified letter-complaint[1] dated April 27, 2005 of Saula de Leon-dela Cruz (complainant) charging Fernando P. Recacho (Recacho), Cash Clerk and Roderick D. Abaigar (Abaigar), Deputy Sheriff, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 79, Las Piñas City, with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty relative to Civil Case No. 6340, entitled Saula de Leon-dela Cruz v. Lolita Salazar.
Complainant
alleges: She is the plaintiff in Civil
Case No. 6340. On P50,000.00, as a condition sine qua non, for implementing the
Demolition Order in connivance with Deputy Chief of Police Alberto Romero of
the Las Piñas City Police Department. The Demolition Order has not been fully
implemented.
In her
supplemental complaint dated P14,000.00
on P10,000.00
to Abaigar and P5,000.00 to Col. Romero but
still no receipts were issued. Due to
the unethical attitude of Abaigar, the demolition of
the houses failed to materialize. Abaigar even instructed her to hire her own demolition crew
as he would be attending a seminar from
In his
Comment[3] dated P15,000.00 for the demolition crew, but only P10,000.00
was given for the 30 persons. He did not
say that he could not continue with the demolition on
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay[4] dated
Upon
recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Court, in
its Resolution dated
On
In its
Resolution of
In its
Memorandum[7] dated
March 21, 2007, the OCA adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Judge
insofar as finding Abaigar guilty of grave misconduct
and violation of Section 6,[8]
Canon IV, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel; but as to Recacho,
the OCA found him guilty of neglect of duty for failure to act promptly on
letters and requests within 15 days from receipt. The OCA recommends that: (a) Abaigar be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
all benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reinstatement and
re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations; and, (b) Recacho
be fined in the amount of P2,000.00, for simple
neglect of duty.
We concur with the findings and recommendations of the OCA, except as to the recommended penalty with respect to respondent Abaigar.
Time and again, we have reminded court personnel to perform their assigned tasks promptly and with great care and diligence considering the important role they play in the administration of justice. With respect to sheriffs, they are to implement writs of execution and similar processes mindful that litigations do not end merely with the promulgation of judgments.[9] Being the final stage in the litigation process, execution of judgments ought to be carried out speedily and efficiently since judgments left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed are rendered inutile and the parties prejudiced thereby, condemnatory of the entire judicial system.[10]
As court employees, sheriffs are obliged to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum and to ensure that their actions are above suspicion at all times. The Court cannot countenance – it in fact condemns – any conduct, act or omission that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes, or even just tends to diminish, the faith of the people in the judiciary.[11]
Records
reveal that the writ of execution was issued by the trial court on
During the
investigation, complainant clarified that the amount given to respondent Abaigar was not P50,000.00,
as initially alleged in the complaint, but only P11,000.00.[13] It matters not, however, how much money was
received by Abaigar.
Primordial is the act of Abaigar in demanding
money from complainant for the execution of the writ of demolition.
Section 10, Rule 141 provides:
Sec. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS
and other persons serving processes. –
x
x x x
With
regard to sheriff's expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders
or decisions or safe-guarding the property levied upon, attached or seized,
including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel,
guards' 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, x x x.
Clearly, Abaigar deviated from the Rules governing the execution of court processes, warranting administrative sanction from this Court.
In Apuyan, Jr. v. Sta. Isabel,[14] the Court held, thus:
Furthermore,
respondent’s act of demanding money and receiving P1,500.00 from the complainant for the lunch and merienda of the policemen who will accompany him in executing
the decision of the Court is a clear violation of section 9, Rule 141. The Rules
require the sheriff to estimate his expenses in the execution of the decision.
The prevailing party will then deposit the said amount to the Clerk of Court
who will disburse the amount to the sheriff, subject to liquidation. Any
unspent amount will have to be returned to the prevailing party. In this case,
no estimate of sheriff's expenses was submitted to the court by respondent. In
fact, the money which respondent deputy sheriff had demanded and received from
complainant was not among those prescribed and authorized by the Rules of
Court. This Court has ruled that 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.[15]
While this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy.[16] Section 53 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, the exonerating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances may be considered.[17] Considering that respondent Abaigar is a first-time offender, a lighter penalty than dismissal from the service would suffice in this case. Thus, instead of imposing the penalty of dismissal, the penalty of suspension from office for one year without pay is proper.[18]
Anent the charge that respondent Recacho hid and withheld the case records from complainant, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the Investigating Justice and Court Administrator.
During the investigation, Recacho admitted that he was in charge of the handling of court records, both civil and criminal. He testified that the complainant's case record was among other records which were misplaced due to a renovation from the period of June to December 2003; that the regular court hearings of the court were not affected by the renovation and that there was no instance wherein the trial was affected due to lack of court records; and that he found the misplaced case record only on July 2004.[19]
The contention of Recacho that the case record of complainant was misplaced fails to exonerate him from liability, as it runs counter to his own testimony that there was no instance that court hearings were affected due to lack of court records. It was Recacho’s lame attempt to exculpate himself from administrative liability. Not even his heavy workload can exonerate him. Being in charge of court records, it behooves upon Recacho to devise ways and means to properly safeguard the same, considering that their office was then undergoing renovation. The delay of almost ten months in the release of a copy of the writ of execution bespeaks of Recacho’s indifference, which conduct certainly erodes the people’s faith in the judiciary. For his failure to do so, he must be held accountable for simple neglect of duty.
Simple neglect
of duty signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or
indifference. It is considered a less
grave offense[20] for which a
penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months shall be imposed
for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.
Pursuant to
Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, a fine
of P2,000.00 is just and reasonable.
The conduct of every person connected with the
administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is
circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[21] A public
office is a public trust. Public
officers, who are accountable at all times to the people – most especially to court litigants – must
perform their duties and responsibilities with utmost efficiency and
competence.[22]
The Court reiterates its policy not to tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that falls short of the exacting norms of public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary.[23] Thus, it will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its employees in order not to diminish the people's faith in our justice system.[24]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds:
(a) Roderick Abaigar, Sheriff, GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and is SUSPENDED for one year without pay; and
(b) Fernando P. Recacho,
Clerk III, GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and is FINED in the
amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).
Moreover, respondents are WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses 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
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp.
1-2.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Canon IV, Sec. 6. Court personnel shall expeditiously enforce
rules and implement orders of the court within the limits of their authority.
[9] Añonuevo v. Rubio, A.M.
No. P-04-1782,
[10]
[11] Tagaloguin v. Hingco, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-2008,
[12] Rule 39, 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. x x x
[13] Rollo, p. 141.
[14] A.M. No. P-01-1497,
[15] Apuyan, Jr. v. Sta. Isabel, supra note 14, at16.
[16] Aquino v. Fernandez, 460 Phil. 1, 13 (2003).
[17] Apuyan case, supra note 14, at 18.
[18] De Guzman, Jr. v.
[19]
TSN
[20] Sec. 23, Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations Implementing Book
V of Executive Order No. 292.
[21]
Alcover, Sr. v. Bacatan, A.M. No. P-05-2043,
[22]
Alcover,
Sr. v.
[23] Maderada v. Mediodea, 459 Phil. 701, 719 (2003).
[24]
Maderada v.