FIRST DIVISION
MARY
ANN ESTOQUE, A.M.
No. P-06-2250
Complainant, (Formerly OCA IPI No.
06-2413-P)
Present:
- versus - PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
AZCUNA, and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
REYNALDO
O. GIRADO,
Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 33,
Respondent. Promulgated:
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This administrative case stemmed from
the verified Letter-Complaint[1] of
Mary Ann Estoque against Reynaldo O. Girado, Sheriff IV of Regional Trial
Court, Branch 33, Davao City, for dereliction of duty in connection with the
latter’s alleged unreasonable failure and refusal to implement the writ of
execution in Civil Case No. 23-242-94 entitled “Marcela A. Estoque et al. v.
Apo View Hotel, et al.”
In the letter-complaint received by the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on
I
am one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 23,248-94, entitled “MARCELA A. ESTOQUE,
MARY ANN ESTOQUE, and NEIL MARK ESTOQUE, Plaintiffs, - versus - APO VIEW HOTEL,
duly represented by MARIANO PAMINTUAN, JR., E.B. VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO.,
LTD., duly represented by ENGR. FELICIANO A. SUBANG and FREYSSINET DAVAO, INC.,
duly represented by ENGR. REYNALDO T. FUENTES, Defendants” for injunction with
prayer for temporary restraining order, damages and attorney’s fees, pending
before the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 33,
Davao City (hereafter “RTC 33”)[.] The
case was filed on
On
Despite
the writ of execution issued on
On
My
complaint is about the unreasonable failure and refusal of the sheriff assigned
at RTC 33 in the person of SHERIFF REYNALDO O. GIRADO to implement,
despite the length of time and follow-ups, the alias writ of execution issued
pursuant to the court order dated
The
following are the records of events[:]
1. On
2.
On
3.
On April 25, 2001, my lawyer filed an EX-PARTE MOTION TO DIRECT THE SHERIFF OF
THIS BRANCH (referring to RTC 33) TO SHOW WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE CITED FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR HIS CONTINUED FAILURE TO MAKE A SHERIFF’S RETURN OF THE
WRIT OF EXECUTION” x x x[;]
4. On
5. On October 24, 2001, for failure of Sheriff
Reynaldo Girado to comply with the order of RTC 33 dated April 27, 2001 xxx, my
lawyer filed a MOTION TO CITE SHERIFF REYNALDO O. GIRADO FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
AND TO ASSIGN A SUBSTITUTE SHERIFF FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE xxx [;]
6. On October 26, 2001, RTC 33 issued an order
directing Sheriff Reynaldo Girado to file his comment to the appropriate motion
[above-stated] within fifteen (15) days from October 26, 2001 xxx;
7.
On January 11, 2002, RTC 33 issued another order directing the Branch Clerk of
Court and [Ex-Officio] Provincial Sheriff to assign and designate from among
the several sheriffs under him a sheriff to implement the Alias Writ of
Execution issued in this case xxx [;]
8.
[On]
“1. Failure to
implement and execute the Alias Writ of Execution issued on
2. Failure to
comply with the Order of this Court dated
3. Failure to
comply with the Order of this Court dated
4. Failure to
comply with the Order of this Court dated
x x x
(Order dated January [14], 2002)
x x x
9. On
June 8, 2004, my lawyer filed a MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION bringing to the
attention of RTC 33 that Sheriff Reynaldo Girado has failed to comply with its
previous orders and that the Clerk of Court and [Ex-Officio] Provincial Sheriff
has not also implemented the directive of RTC 33 contained in the order dated
January 11, 2002 xxx ;
10.
On
11.
On June 15, 2004, RTC 33 issued an order again directing Sheriff Reynaldo
Girado to submit his explanation why he should not be held in contempt of court
for failure to comply with the [Order] of this Court (RTC 33), within ten (10)
days from receipt of the order xxx [;]
12.
On June 24, 2002, my lawyer wrote the Clerk of Court and [Ex-Officio]
Provincial Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Davao City, requesting for the
implementation of the Order dated January 11, 2002 for the assignment of a
substitute sheriff xxx [;] [and]
13.
On September 24, 2004, my lawyer wrote a REQUEST FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
ORDER DATED JANUARY 11, 2002 ISSUED BY BRANCH 33 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
11TH JUDICIAL REGION, DAVAO CITY, addressed to the Clerk of Court
and [Ex-Officio] Provincial Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, 11th
Judicial Region, Davao City xxx. Up to the present, I have not yet received any
information from the Clerk of Court and [Ex-Officio] Provincial Sheriff
regarding my said request.
Despite the several orders of RTC 33, Sheriff Reynaldo Girado has unjustifiably failed and refused and up to the present still fails and refuses to comply with those orders, leaving me with no other recourse or option but to send this present LETTER-COMPLAINT to your Honorable Office for proper action against Sheriff Reynaldo O. Girado.
It
is feared that if no immediate implementation of the writ of execution in this
case, the life of the occupants of the house, the complainant herein and the
members of her family, the other plaintiffs in the aforementioned case, will be
in danger and at risk considering that the kitchen of the occupants is now
about to collapse and the posts are now almost suspended[.][2]
In his
Comment[3]
to the complaint, respondent pleaded:
a) At the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have no slightest intention not to implement the alias writ of execution issued by the Court of [sic] on July 7, 2000 much less, disobey and totally disregard the lawful orders of the court;
b) The records would bare that pursuant to the Writ of Execution dated 7 April 1999, I exerted efforts to implement the same on July 30, 1999 where I conducted an inspection on the residential building of plaintiffs together with plaintiff Mary Ann Estoque and the representatives of defendant Freyssinet Davao, Inc.;
c) During said inspection, we found out that the repair made by defendant E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd. on the residential building of plaintiffs was a failure and no certificate of completion was handed by the defendants to the plaintiffs and neither did the defendants execute a performance bond in favor of the plaintiffs as agreed upon by them;
d) As indicated in my sheriff’s progress report dated 18 August 1999[,] copy furnished plaintiff’s counsel, defendant E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd. was not notified of the inspection because of the closure of its office at 102 Juan Luna Street, Davao City[,] following [the] cessation of [its] operation;
e) I tried to locate the whereabouts of the officers of E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd., in order to fully implement the decision of the court but all my efforts proved futile;
f) On
g) I was again confronted with the dilemma on how to implement it considering that defendant E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd. is nowhere to be found;
h) In one instance where I chanced upon in court plaintiff’s previous counsel, Atty. Clemencia Cataluña, I told her about it and she casually commented that “it’s really a problem because how could you implement it when the one which will do the repair and make good the undertaking could not be located”;
i) Locked on this predicament, I chose not to make any return nor submit any progress report to the court because plaintiff’s already knew about it when I furnished them with my sheriff’s progress report dated August 18, 1999;
j) In my humble understanding, I could not fully implement the subject alias writ of execution without defendant E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd. having been duly informed about it in view of the fact that it has already ceased operation and closed down its offices and the whereabouts of its officers [were] totally unknown to me;
k) To reiterate, I have no slightest intention to disregard the various motions filed by the plaintiff for me to file my return and/or progress report [or] flagrantly disobey the lawful orders of the court;
l) I sincerely apologize to the plaintiffs for not according them the respect and courtesy they deserve, and to the Honorable Court, for not religiously following its orders and directives to the letter; and
m) I am very sorry for what I have done and I strongly resolve not to commit again the same mistakes in the future.[4]
After consideration of the parties’
respective submissions, the OCA, on P1,000, with warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.[5]
Respondent manifested his willingness
to submit this matter for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed,
conformably with this Court’s
The Court agrees with the evaluation
of the OCA but not as to its recommended penalty.
Time and again, it has been held that
the sheriff’s duty in the execution of a
writ is purely ministerial; he is to execute the court order strictly to the
letter and has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. Once the
writ is placed in his hands, it is his duty, unless restrained by the court, to
proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to properly execute it
according to its mandate, ensuring at all times that the enforcement of a
judgment is not unduly delayed.[6]
Thus, a sheriff should know by heart his
order to make a return of the writ of execution to the clerk/judge issuing it
or if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within 30 days after his receipt
of the writ, to report to the court and state the reason/s therefor. In the latter case, he is further tasked to
make a report to the court every 30 days on the proceedings followed until the
judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires.[7] The submission of the return and periodic
reports by the sheriffs is not a duty that must be taken lightly. 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 overall purpose of the
requirement is to ensure speedy execution of decisions.[8]
In this case, respondent admittedly failed
to implement the alias writ of execution issued on
The Court is not persuaded. Good faith or lack of it in proceeding to
execute the writ is inconsequential, for a sheriff is chargeable with the
knowledge that being an officer of the court it behooves him to make compliance
in due time.[9] Hence, granting for argument’s sake that
respondent indeed entertained an honest belief that enforcing the writ would only
be a futile attempt, the rules still do not give him the prerogative not to implement
the alias writ.
Moreover, respondent simply brushed
aside and trivialized the orders issued by the trial court. From what appears on record, even the court
was seemingly helpless to enjoin immediate compliance by respondent for he repeatedly
refused, without any justification, to comply with its five directives, to wit:
on February 1, 2001 (to submit his sheriff’s return of the alias writ of
execution); on April 27, 2001 (to show cause why he should not be cited for
contempt of court for continued failure to submit his sheriff’s return); on October
26, 2001 (to file his comment to the motion to cite him for contempt of court
and to assign a substitute sheriff); on January 14, 2002 (to show cause why he
should not be cited for contempt of court for failure to implement the alias
writ of execution and to comply with the three previous court orders); and on
June 15, 2004 (to submit his explanation why he should not be held in contempt
of court for failure to comply with the January 14, 2002 Order). Nothing was practically heard from respondent
until this case was filed. His constant
indifference on the matter belies his representation that he had not the slightest
intention to disobey the court orders.
Under
the Revised Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in
the
Civil Service,[10] respondent
is guilty of simple neglect of duty
which is defined as the failure of an
employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of
a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is classified as a less grave offense which
carries the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
for the first
offense and dismissal for the second
offense.[11] As it appears that respondent has not been
previously administratively faulted and so as not to hamper the performance of the
duties of his office,[12]
instead of suspending him, he should be fined in an amount equivalent to his salary
for one month.
WHEREFORE, respondent Sheriff Reynaldo O.
Girado is found GUILTY of simple neglect
of duty and is FINED in an amount equivalent to his salary for one month, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be
attached to the personnel records of respondent Girado in the Office of the
Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.
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
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-6.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Vargas v. Primo, A.M. No.
P-07-2336,
[7] Bunagan v. Ferraren, A.M.
No. P-06-2173,
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
promptly furnished the parties.
[8] Patawaran v. Nepomuceno, supra note 6.
[9] Bunagan v. Ferraren, id.
[10] Promulgated by the Civil Service
Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 1999 and implemented by
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (see Aranda, Jr. v. Alvarez,
A.M. No. P-04-1889,
[11] Vargas v. Primo, supra note 6; Sy v. Binasing,
A.M. No. P-06-2213,
[12] Sy v. Binasing, id.; Jacinto v. Castro, id.; and Tiu v. Dela Cruz, id.