THIRD DIVISION
|
Judge Ofelia
Calo, MeTC, Branch 59, Complainants, - versus - RICARDO l.
Dizon, Sheriff
III, MeTC, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No.
P-07-2359 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2304-P) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August 11, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
The administrative case at bar arose from the letter[1]
dated 6 January 2005 of Mr. Melo M. Acuna, Station Manager of Radio Veritas,
informing the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) of the plight of Mrs. Pablea Tamayo (Mrs. Tamayo),
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 18787, a case for unlawful detainer, pending before
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 59, Mandaluyong City. The MeTC, in its Decision dated P3,000.00
as attorney’s fees and pay the costs of suit.”
Pursuant to the Decision dated
WHEREAS, in the above-entitled
action for Forcible Entry and Illegal Detainer of the following described
premises, to wit: 360 Addition Hills,
Mandaluyong City, lately tried before me, wherein judgment was rendered on 29
April 2003, that the plaintiff aforesaid have restitution of the premises, and
also that he recovers the rent in arrears, and damages in the amount of
P_________ and also that he recovers cost in the sum of P_________ x x x.
NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby
commanded to cause the defendant aforesaid to forthwith be removed from the
premises and that the plaintiff aforesaid to have restitution of the same; also
that you collect from defendant the rent, damages, and costs in the amount
aforesaid, and your fees for the service of this execution, and upon the
failure of defendant to pay same, that you seize the goods and chattels of the
said defendant, except such are by law exempt, and make sale thereof according
to the law in such cases made and provided to the amount of said judgment and
costs and interest hereon from the date of said judgment, together with your
fees upon this execution, and pay the amount so collected by you hereunder to
the plaintiff in said action except the amount of your fees hereon.
In case sufficient personal property
of the said defendant cannot be found to satisfy the amount of said judgment,
costs, interest, and your fees hereon, you are directed to levy upon any real
estate of Neron & Luisa Ladaga and Olympio Taray, defendant, and to sell
the same in the manner provided by law for the satisfaction of the balance of
said judgment, costs, interest, and your fees hereon, and that you make return
of your proceedings hereunder upon this writ within 60 days from receipt
hereof.[2]
Sheriff Dizon, though, failed to
implement the MeTC Decision dated
The
OCA referred[3]
the matter to Judge Ofelia L. Calo (Judge Calo) of MeTC, Branch 1,
In her Report[4]
dated P10,000.00
sheriff’s fee declared by Sheriff Dizon as part of the execution expenses was
highly irregular for lack of approval by
the court and failure of Sheriff Dizon to explain how the money was spent. Judge Calo concluded that Sheriff Dizon must
have misappropriated the amount.
Still,
according to Judge Calo’s report, the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 18787
was received by Sheriff Dizon on
In addition to the subject civil
case, Judge Calo also took note of several cases in which the integrity of
Sheriff Dizon in the performance of his functions was put in issue, to wit:
1.
In Civil Case No. 18317 entitled
“Teresita Brioso v. Chit Penus,” for Sum of Money, the plaintiff filed a Motion
for Appointment of a Special Sheriff because sheriff Dizon was unable to
enforce the writ of execution. In his
report, sheriff Dizon alleged that the judgment could not be enforced because
the defendant does not have any real or personal property to be levied
upon. Plaintiff filed another motion
reiterating her earlier motion for appointment of a special sheriff. During the hearing, plaintiff declared in open
court that the defendant has personal properties such as refrigerator and
computer. In addition, the record
reveals that the filing of the return was made several months late. In an Order date
2.
In Civil Case No. 19171 entitled “Genie Grace Tuyay and Joel
Tuyay v. P. Ador De Asis” for Unlawful Detainer, defendant filed a verified
Motion to Cite Deputy Sheriff Ricardo Dizon for Contempt of Court. According to defendant, sheriff Dizon failed to
provide him with full statement of the proceedings under the writ and an
itemized list of the properties attached.
In addition, instead of depositing the attached property in court,
sheriff Dizon turned them over to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the court, in an Order dated
3.
In Civil Case No. 19438 entitled “Eagle
Financial Service Group, Inc. v. Sps. Angelito and Violeta Langubnan” for Sum
of Money, the court dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to cause
the service of summons for six (6) months.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that it has
already advanced the amount of P1,500.00 to sheriff Dizon for the
service of summons. The latter admitted
having received the money but reasoned out that it was plaintiff’s counsel who
agreed to hold in abeyance the service of summons pending the availability of
funds for the service of summonses in other civil cases. Judge Calo noted that the sheriff has no
authority to withhold the service of summons upon the mere plea of the plaintiff.
4. In Civil Case No. 19696 entitled “Radiowealth Finance Company, Inc. v. Sps. Alden Arcinas & Lilia Arcinas and John Doe” for Recovery of Possession, plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Compel Sheriff to Implement the Writ of Replevin because of sheriff Dizon’s refusal to implement the writ. Sheriff Dizon explained that he served the summons upon a certain Alex Canaveral who introduced himself as a lawyer and upon whose possession the vehicle was found. Canaveral allegedly refused to surrender possession of the vehicle and despite prodding of plaintiff’s representative, he desisted from seizing the vehicle in order to prevent the happening of any untoward incident considering that plaintiff refused to avail of the presence of police officers. The court reprimanded sheriff Dizon with a stern warning that a repetition of same or similar act will be dealt with more severely citing that there was no basis that would indicate a threat to his life or limb. It is also incumbent upon him to coordinate with the police.[5]
On
the basis of Judge Calo’s report, the OCA made the following recommendations:
A perusal of the documents submitted before us reveals that the complaints against sheriff Dizon are serious in nature and should be given due course. The initial investigation conducted by Judge Ofelia L. Calo provided sufficient basis to continue with the administrative proceedings against the said sheriff. Meanwhile, in the interest of due process, sheriff Dizon must be given the chance to answer the charges against him.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully recommended that:
1.
The report dated
2. That the instant complaint be DOCKETED for informal preliminary inquiry;
3. That sheriff Ricardo L. Dizon be required to COMMENT on the letter of Mr. Melo M. Acuna and the Report dated 18 April 2005 of Judge Ofelia L. Calo within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [6]
In his comment[7]
dated
Sheriff Dizon argued that the
conclusions of Judge Calo that the former received P10,000.00 from Mrs.
Tamayo and misappropriated the same had no basis. He was not able to deny that he received the P10,000.00
because Mrs. Tamayo never alleged that she gave said amount to him and that he
received the same. Sheriff Dizon
explained that Mrs. Tamayo had her own version of the dispositive portion of
the MeTC Decision dated
Sheriff
Dizon then proceeded to state his side on the other cases cited by Judge Calo
in which he did not perform his functions.
In Civil Case No. 18317 entitled, “Teresita Brioso v. Chit Penus,” Sheriff Dizon clarified that the
writ of execution issued therein was not implemented because the defendant did
not make any payment and had no properties to be levied upon. Respondent informed the plaintiff of this
fact but her counsel moved for the appointment of a special sheriff. It was not correct to state that he failed to
enforce the writ. The writ was
immediately acted upon but the enforcement was unsuccessful. He, however, admitted that he failed to
render a report of the proceedings on time.
As
for Civil Case No. 19171 entitled, “Genie
Grace Tuyay v. P. Ador de Asis,” Sheriff Dizon alleged that he executed the
order of attachment by taking one meat-grinding machine, one chest freezer and one
defective GE refrigerator. These items
were deposited at plaintiff’s residence, because there was no space in the
court where they could be stored, and plaintiff did not want to shoulder the
expenses for their storage in a bonded warehouse. Sheriff Dizon justified his action by arguing
that the rule on the custody of attached goods is not absolute. Again, he admitted that he failed to
immediately submit a report of the proceedings, but his report was submitted
nonetheless.
Sheriff
Dizon explained that in Civil Case No. 19438 entitled, “Eagle Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Sps. Angelito and Violeta
Langubnan,” the plaintiff’s counsel handed him P1,500.00 as
sheriff’s expenses for the service of summons in Sagana,
Relative
to Civil Case No. 19696, Sheriff Dizon pointed out that he did not seize the
vehicle subject of the writ of replevin therein for the reason that the vehicle
was in a company compound and heavily guarded by armed security men. He was also not provided any police
assistance. He wanted to accomplish his
work, but he had to exercise prudence in doing so.
On
In her reply[8]
dated 30 August 2006, Judge Calo stated that Mrs. Tamayo’s interpretation of
the dispositive portion of the MeTC Decision dated 29 April 2003 included the
amount of P10,000.00 as sheriff’s fee, P100,000.00 as damages,
and P17,800.00 as rent in arrears.
Judge Calo maintained that she would not have concluded that Sheriff
Dizon received P10,000.00 from Mrs. Tamayo and misappropriated the same
if Sheriff Dizon had made a categorical denial of receipt of the said amount
when he submitted his comment to Judge Calo.
Judge
Calo further informed the Court that after she submitted her report (re: 1st
Indorsement dated 2 March 2005), she made a continuing effort to monitor
Sheriff Dizon’s implementation of court processes, including writs of
execution; and that Sheriff Dizon was made to submit an itinerary of travel and
estimate of expenses subject to her approval whenever he was scheduled to
implement the court processes. As a
result, miscommunication and misunderstanding were avoided during the service
of summons and implementation of writs.
Judge Calo additionally observed that Sheriff Dizon was now more
cautious with his work, and this administrative matter has served as a stern warning
to him to deal with the litigants expeditiously and honestly.
Judge
Calo’s second reply dated
In
her letter dated
The
Court in its
On
This office finds that respondent disregarded the rules on the implementation of the writs of execution, attachment and replevin, service of summons and filing of the required sheriff’s return which is tantamount to simple neglect of duty punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal for the second.
In view of the foregoing, it respectfully recommended that respondent sheriff Ricardo L. Dizon by SUSPENDED for three (3) months with STERN WARNING that a repetition of similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
On
Resultantly,
the case is submitted for decision based on the pleadings filed.
Before proceeding, it appears that Sheriff
Dizon died on
After a review of the administrative case, the Court agrees
in the findings of the OCA, except for the recommended penalty.
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly
provides 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 must 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 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
furnished the parties.
As stated, it is
mandatory for the sheriff to execute and make a return on the writ of execution
within the period provided by the Rules of Court. Moreover, the sheriff must make periodic
reports on partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs in accordance with the
above-cited rule, in order that the court as well as the litigants may be
apprised of the proceedings undertaken in connection therewith. Such periodic reporting on the status of the
writs must be done by the sheriff regularly and consistently every 30 days
until they are returned fully satisfied.
Unchallenged by Sheriff Dizon is the non-execution of the
writ of execution in Civil Case No. 18787, as well as his failure to make the
timely and appropriate reports thereon, as required by the foregoing rule. He even candidly admitted his lapses and
shortcomings in the performance of his duties in his
1. “x x x. In it I pointed out the fact
that it was the plaintiff’s inability to furnish me with police assistance that
I could not immediately act on the Writ, considering the location of the
premises, a slum area, and the defiant attitude of the defendants. That was not
an imagined threat or situation. On that occasion when I proceeded to the
subject premises to announce to the defendants the issuance of the Writ of
execution, copies of which were furnished them, while trying to spot any
leviable property within the premises, the defendants and their sympathizers
had already exhibited disrespect for authorities and would no doubt exert
physical violence to thwart execution. I
then requested the plaintiff to seek police assistance on the date the writ
would be implemented to which he acceded, but on the date set, the plaintiff
failed to show. Her presence, in fact, was not necessary but there was no
police assistance as promised in order to protect everyman’s life and limb
during the execution.
2. It was only on
It is worthy to mention that Sheriff
Dizon received the writ of execution for implementation on
As
to the P10,000.00 sheriff’s fee, there appears to be no substantial
evidence to prove that Sheriff Dizon received the same. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of
establishing, by substantial evidence, the averments of his complaint.[14] Mere suspicion without proof cannot be the
basis of conviction.[15] In the instant case, Mrs. Tamayo failed to
discharge that burden. In fact, it was
not even alleged in the complaint that Sheriff Dizon asked for or received the
said amount. The “dispositive portion of
the decision” referred to by Mrs. Tamayo, which supposedly included the amount
of P10,000.00 sheriff’s fee, was apparently expanded by her to justify
her claims for additional monetary awards.
In any event, this Court takes note
of the alarming pattern in Sheriff Dizon’s performance of his official functions.
In
Civil Case No. 18317, Sheriff Dizon admitted his failure to implement the writ
and to make a return thereon on time:
5. Civil Case No.
18317 x x x No payment was made by the defendant and nothing leviable was in
sight within her residence. After having informed the plaintiff of such a fact,
her counsel moved for appointment of a special sheriff in a motion dated
Although he claimed that he acted on
the writ but the defendant had no properties that could be levied upon, his
delay in filing the required report to properly inform the court and the
parties concerned of the problem in the execution of the judgment, and the
continued non-enforcement of the writ constrained the plaintiff’s counsel to
request the court’s appointment of a special sheriff to serve the alias
writ of execution.
In Civil Case No. 19696, Sheriff
Dizon acknowledged that he failed and refused to implement the writ of
replevin, but alleged that there was a threat to his life, and plaintiff failed
to provide him with police assistance. He stated in his comment that:
8. The very reason why I relented in taking possession of said vehicle despite the prodding of plaintiff’s representative was due to the fact that said vehicle was located in a company compound and heavily guarded by armed security men the number of which increased more upon learning of my purpose. While I was armed with a court order and with a sincere desire to accomplish my work, what can I do in the presence of security guards armed with shotguns and sidearms who in blind obedience would pull the trigger at a mere wink of an eye of their employer? Police assistance, as I have already told plaintiff’s representative beforehand, was necessary in such a situation but there was none. x x x.[17]
As regards Civil Case No. 19171,
Sheriff Dizon exhibited imprudence in his duty of putting the attached
properties in his safekeeping. He
transferred their actual possession to the plaintiff, in violation of the rule
requiring him to safely keep them in his custody. The alleged lack of space in the court to
store the attached properties and failure of plaintiff to defray the expenses
for their storage in a bonded warehouse are not sufficient justifications for
his action. Sheriff Dizon should have
sought prior permission from the court before depositing them at the
plaintiff’s house. Needless to say,
Sheriff Dizon failed to live up to the exacting standard required of his
office. In enforcing the writ, he
exposed his lack of impartiality. And
yet again, Sheriff Dizon did not submit a timely report on the proceedings to
the court.
Lastly, in Civil Case No. 19438,
Sheriff Dizon failed to serve the summons despite the lapse of more than six
months from its issuance. Granting that
plaintiff’s counsel allegedly advised him to hold in abeyance the service of
summons pending the summons in other civil cases which needed to be served in
the same area, Sheriff Dizon had no discretion or authority to withhold the
service of the summons in Civil Case No. 19438, thus, compromising his duty as
sheriff who was responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court
processes.
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of
justice. They are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts.
If not enforced, such decisions become empty victories of the prevailing
parties. 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.[18]
Being the frontline representative of
the justice system, a sheriff must always exert every effort and, indeed,
consider it his bounden duty, to perform his duties in order to maintain public
trust. He must see to it that the final
stage in the litigation process -- the execution of the judgment -- is carried
out with no unnecessary delay, in order to ensure a speedy and efficient
administration of justice. A decision
left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed due to his neglect of duty renders it
inutile; and worse, the parties who are prejudiced thereby tend to condemn the
entire judicial system.[19]
The Court has said time and again that a sheriff’s duty in
the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to execute the order of
the court strictly to the letter. He has
no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. He is mandated to uphold the majesty of the
law as embodied in the decision. When a writ
is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any
instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and
promptness to execute it according to its mandate.[20] Accordingly, a sheriff must comply with his
mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible.[21]
There is even no need for the litigants to “follow up” a writ’s implementation.[22]
The failure of Sheriff Dizon to carry
out what is a purely ministerial duty cannot be justified. The procrastination displayed by him,
resulting in the long delay in the execution of court judgments, is truly
deplorable. Clearly, Sheriff Dizon
failed to observe the degree of dedication to the duties and responsibilities
required of him as a sheriff. Through
his failure, he breached his sworn duty to uphold the majesty of the law and
the integrity of the justice system. The court cannot countenance such
dereliction of duty, as it erodes the faith and trust of the citizenry in the
judiciary. As an implementing officer of the court, Sheriff Dizon should
set the example by faithfully observing, and not brazenly disregarding, the
Rules.
By his actuations, Sheriff Dizon
displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of Court
employees. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the
failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him, and
signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[23] Under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less
grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one
(1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second
offense.
In Ayo
v. Judge Violago-Isnani,[24]
the Court found respondent clerk of court guilty of simple neglect of duty for
causing the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution and suspended
him from office for one (1) month and one (1) day. In Alvarez, Jr. v. Martin,[25]
the sheriff, declared guilty of “failure/refusal to perform official duty” for
failing to implement a writ of execution, was suspended for three (3) months
without pay. The same sheriff, in Aquino v. Martin, was fined P10,000.00
for dereliction of duty when he failed to implement writs of execution in
several civil cases.[26]
In this case, Sheriff Dizon has been
an accountable officer of the court for more than 20 years and is, thus,
presumed to have imbibed at least the fundamental rules and principles in
implementing the writ of execution. However, considering that this is the
first time he is found guilty of an
offense in his almost twenty-five years of service in the judiciary, the
Court is inclined to grant him a certain leniency without being unmindful of
the fact that he had breached the provisions of the Rules of Court. For
this reason, the Court is wont to impose the penalty of two (2) months’
suspension; but, given the intervening event of Sheriff Dizon’s death on P20,000.00) would
suffice.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Sheriff Ricardo L. Dizon is hereby found guilty of simple neglect of
duty, and a FINE of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00) is imposed upon him, to be deducted from his
retirement benefits. Let a copy of this decision be attached to his
personal records.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Hon. Barbers v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 404 Phil. 443, 475 (2001).
[15] Spouses Lorena v. Judge Encomienda, 362 Phil. 248, 257 (1999).
[16] Rollo, p. 56.
[17]
[18]
[19]
Aquino v. Martin, 458 Phil. 76, 82 (2003).
[20]
Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna,
A.M. No. P-04-1786,
[21] Aquino v. Lavadia, 417 Phil. 770, 776 (2001).
[22]
[23] Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 415 Phil. 713, 720-721 (2001).
[24] 368 Phil. 19, 28 (1999).
[25] 458 Phil. 85, 96 (2003).
[26] Supra
note 19 at 84; Re: Judicial Audit of the
RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City, Presided Over by Hon. Ernesto R. Gutierrez, A.M.
No. RTJ-05-1950,