FIRST DIVISION
BRANCH CLERK OF
COURT A.M. No. P-06-2142
MARIZEN
B. GRUTAS, (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2294-P)
Complainant,
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,*
AZCUNA, and
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ.
REYNALDO
B. MADOLARIA,
Respondent. Promulgated:
X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This case arose from a complaint-affidavit
dated
Complainant
alleged that on several occasions, respondent had been remiss in his duties as
deputy sheriff. He was always out of office
and had the predilection to loaf during office hours resulting in the delay and
resetting of court hearings. Further,
respondent’s conduct seriously affected the schedule of hearings which impaired
the RTC’s function of administering speedy justice to
the party-litigants. Several memoranda
were issued to respondent requiring him to explain his failure to submit on
time the return of the notices and processes in the case pending before the
court. Complainant reports that
respondent merely disregarded the said directives. Complainant further avers
that respondent remained adamant despite the following memoranda/orders issued
to him, to wit:
1)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Procedure Re: Time-Ins and Time-Out Unauthorized Out of
Court Processes and Transactions and Turn-over of Return.[2]
2)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Loafing During Office Hours,
Disrespectful Attitude, Inefficiency.[3]
3)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure to Submit Return within the
Allowable Period in the following cases:
1)
Jane Orsino
vs. Highway Rental Services Corp. rep. by its Pres. Lee Seung
and Vice Pres. Annie Llanura – Civil Case No.
Q-04-51476;
2)
Fred Bautista and Ana Tribina vs. Lily Crespo and
Priscilla Crespo – Civil Case No. Q-04-52667; and
3)
Epifania Ignacio, et al. vs. The Register
of Deeds of
4) Memorandum dated
Subject: Failure to Make a Return Re: the
Order dated
5) Memorandum dated
Subject: Failure to Submit Return Re: Writs
of Preliminary Attachment Within the Allowable Period
in the following cases:
1)
Power Check vs.
Ferdinand Garcia
– Q-04-52898.
2)
Sonic Print, Inc. vs. Handy
City Pages, Inc., et al. – Q-04-53159.
3)
Igros Marketing Corp. vs. MSM Contracting Corp. – Q-03-50220.[6]
6)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure to Serve Notice to Accused
7)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure
to Make a Return (Civil Case No. 04-54187).[8]
8)
Order
Issued by Judge Lydia Layosa dated P100.00) for failure to
serve the Order dated 4 April 2005 (settling the prayer for preliminary
injunction) resulting in non-appearance of petitioner’s counsel in the hearing
for the injunction.[9]
9)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure to Make a Return Re: the
Service of Summons in Civil Cases Nos. 05-54620 and 05-05-55072.[10]
10)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Inefficiency, Complete Disregard of
Office Rules (for not reporting back to the office after serving court orders
and/or processes during the remaining office hours).[11]
11)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure to Serve Notice to Accused
for Arraignment on
12)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure to Submit Returns Re: Writ
of Preliminary Attachment in Civil Case No. Q-04-54479, entitled Dr. Potenciano Malvar vs. Atty. Sergio Angeles, et al. Despite the
Pending Motion to Quash Writ Filed by Defendant.[13]
13)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Insubordination to Office Rules
& Directives (for failure to attend the monthly Judicial Service Team
meeting despite notice).[14]
14)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure to Serve Notices to
Witnesses in Crim. Case Nos. Q-05-131750,
05-133415 and Service Thereof Despite Lack of Three Day Notice in Crim. Case Q-04-24217.[15]
15)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Late Submission of Returns in
Violation of the Office Rules Agreed Upon During the JST Meeting on
16)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Failure to Submit Sheriff’s Returns
Re: Judgment of Forfeiture and Writs Executed on Confiscated Bonds in Violation
of the Rules on Surety Bond.
1)
Pp. vs. Monica Cincyo y Rapal (Q-03-122915);
2)
Pp. vs. Edilberto Napoles y Castillo (Q-02-108283);
3)
Pp. vs. Juancho Navarro y Fernandez (Q-03-122332);
4)
Pp. vs. Senando Santos (Q-03-122962);
5)
Pp. vs. Antonio Yucor y Mirasol (Q-03-122962);
6)
Pp. vs. Armando Padilla
y Pascual (Q-04-123603); and
7)
Pp. vs. Rodrigo Mahur-Benson (Q-03-121120).[17]
17)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Guidelines on How to Make a Proper
Service of Notices/Processes, Orders, etc.[18]
18)
Memorandum
dated
Subject: Proper Coordination/OB Slip Before Service of Any Court Processes.[19]
The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) thereupon ordered respondent, by 1st Indorsement of
In his Counter-Affidavit,
respondent contended that voluminous court processes for service, difficulty in
locating the addresses and effecting personal service, and heavy traffic
usually prevent him from going back to work after he has served all the
processes. He claims that complainant was
never satisfied with his diligent work because she wants him to resign from the
service in order that the position may be vacated.
In the agenda report[21]
dated
Certainly,
respondent’s reliance in the above-cited case is misplaced. His acts clearly
constitute dereliction of duty and gross incompetence to the great prejudice of
the administration of justice. As sheriff, he is primarily responsible for the
speedy and efficient service of all court processes.
Respondent
did not deny the allegations in the complaint but merely proffered flimsy
excuses for his failures. It can be discerned from respondent’s own
counter-affidavit that complainant had no malicious motive for lodging the
instant complaint.
The
Court has time and again reminded court personnel to perform their assigned
tasks promptly and with great care and diligence. Sec. 1, Canon IV of the Code
of Conduct for Court Personnel, provides:
Sec. 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform
official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves
exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working
hours.
The Court agrees with the OCA’s findings and recommended penalty.
Respondent relied in the ruling
of the case of Philippine Racing Club, Inc. v. Bonifacio,
et al.[22] and
claimed that:
x
x x when the Deputy Sheriff
is invested with discretion and is empowered to exercise judgment in matters
brought before him such as prioritizing the service of notice, processes, and
court orders, he is called a quasi-judicial officer, and when so acting, he is
given immunity from liability [to those] who may be injured as a result of such
erroneous or mistaken decision. x x x[23]
As noted by the OCA,
respondent’s contention is flawed. Section
1 of Article XI of the Constitution declares that a public office is a public
trust. It enjoins public officers and
employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency and to at all times remain
accountable to the people.[24] As frontline officials of the justice system,
sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must always strive to maintain public trust in the
performance of their duties.[25]
The
Court finds respondent’s explanations of the various offenses attributed to him
to be utterly wanting. As the OCA reported,
respondent did not refute the allegations in the complaint but merely proffered
feeble defenses for his unsatisfactory work in the judiciary.
By the very nature of their
functions, deputy sheriffs, such as respondent, are called upon to discharge
their duties with due care and utmost diligence and above all, to be beyond
suspicion.[26] Evidently,
respondent’s repeated failure to make a return, to serve notice to the accused,
and to submit a return within the allowable period constitute inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties, and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service. Inefficiency
and incompetence in the performance of official duties, and conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service each carry the penalty of suspension from
six months and one day to one year even for the first offense.[27]
Respondent’s
failure likewise to attend the JTS Meeting on
Another
infraction committed by the respondent is loafing, which is defined as “frequent
unauthorized absences from duty during regular hours,” with the word “frequent”
connoting that the employees absent themselves from duty more than once.[30]
Respondent claims that he is always on
duty outside of the office and does his work even late in the afternoon,
sometimes utilizing the weekends for the rendition of his service. This explanation is indefensible as the
practice of off-setting tardiness or absence by working for an equivalent
number of minutes or hours beyond the regular or approved working hours of the
employee concerned is not allowed under the Civil Service Rules.[31]
Loafing or frequent unauthorized
absences from duty during regular working hours is punishable by suspension
from office for six months and one day to one year for the first offense
following Rule IV, Section 52 A (17) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service or CSC Resolution No. 991936.
In
Lopena v. Saloma,[32]
the Court held:
x
x x all judicial employees
must devote their official time to government service. Public officials and
employees must see to it that they follow the Civil Service Law and Rules.
Consequently, they must observe the prescribed office hours and the efficient
use of every moment thereof for public service if only to recompense the
government and ultimately the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the
judiciary. To inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials
and employees are at all times behooved to strictly observe official time. This
is because 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 last and lowest of its employees. Thus, court employees must
exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as
service in the judiciary is not only a duty, it is a mission.[33]
WHEREFORE, Reynaldo B. Madolaria,
Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City, is found GUILTY
of inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties, conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of service, insubordination, and loafing or frequent unauthorized
absences from duty during regular working hours and is SUSPENDED for one
(1) year without pay, with a STERN WARNING that the commission of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
* On Leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[2] Rollo, p. 5.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] 109 Phil. 233, 241 (1960).
[23] Rollo, p. 42.
[24] Geolingo v. Albayda, A.M. No. P-02-1660,
[25] Fajardo v. Sheriff Quitalig, 448 Phil. 29, 31 (2003).
[26] Imperial v.
[27] Rule IV, Section 52 A (16), (20) of the “Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,” Resolution No. 991936 of the Civil Service Commission.
[28] Geolingo
v. Albayda, supra
note 24, at 39.
[29] Rule IV, Section 52 B (5) of the “Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,” Resolution No. 991936 of the Civil Service Commission.
[30] Lopena v. Saloma, A.M. No. P-06-2280,
[31] Section 9 Rule XVII of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws provides:
SEC. 9. Off-setting of tardiness or absence by working for an equivalent number of minutes or hours by which an officer or employee has been tardy or absent, beyond the regular or approved working hours of the employees concerned, shall not be allowed.
[32] Supra note 30.
[33]