THIRD DIVISION
|
KATIPUNAN NG TINIG SA
ADHIKAIN, INC. (KATIHAN) by GODOFREDO S. BONGON, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE LUIS ZENON O.
MACEREN, SHERIFF ANTOLIN ORTEGA CUIZON, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 39, Respondents. |
A.M.
No. MTJ-07-1680
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1876-MTJ)
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: November
28, 2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
us is respondent Sheriff Antolin Ortega Cuizon’s motion for reconsideration of
the Decision of the Court dated August 17, 2007, suspending him for a period of
three (3) months without pay with a warning that a commission of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The
antecedents:
Complainants
were among the unlawful occupants of the parcels of land owned by Carmen Lopez,
which were subsequently sold to Efrain Limsui (Limsui). On
On
On
On
Complainants
filed the present administrative complaint against respondents. They contend
that due to the writ of demolition issued by respondent judge, they were
ejected from the property without due process of law. They aver that they
should not be affected by the decision rendered by respondent judge because
they are not parties to the case before the MeTC. They filed the administrative
case against respondent sheriff because he issued a notice of demolition
without order or authority from the MeTC.
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the administrative complaint against Judge Luis Zenon O. Maceren is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Sheriff Antolin Ortega Cuizon is SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months without pay, with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Respondent
judge was exonerated from administrative liability because there was no
concrete evidence that he acquiesced to, or participated in, respondent
sheriff’s act of directing the demolition of complainants’ structures on the
subject property without authority from the court. On the other hand,
respondent sheriff was held administratively liable for exceeding his authority
in issuing a final notice of demolition without any order from the MeTC and for
belatedly filing the sheriff’s report.
On
We
are not persuaded.
Granting
that the demolition of the structures erected on the property was sanctioned by
the decision based on the compromise agreement, an outright removal of the same
is not allowed by the Rules of Court, Section 10(d), Rule 39 of which provides:
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. – When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.[1]
Respondent
sheriff is specifically mandated by the Rules not to destroy, demolish or
remove improvements, except upon special order of the court. Thus, aside from the writ of execution
implementing the decision based on the compromise agreement, another writ or
order from the court is needed specifically allowing the removal of the
improvements on the property subject of execution.
Likewise,
respondent sheriff cannot be excused for his failure to make periodic reports,
as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which states that:
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.[2]
Respondent
sheriff’s stubborn insistence that he was not negligent in furnishing the trial
court with periodic reports is unacceptable. The Rules of Court is clear that
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. The records reveal that on
The
submission of the return and periodic reports by the sheriff is not a duty that
is to be taken lightly. It serves to
update the court on the status of the execution and why the judgment was not
satisfied. It also provides insights to 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.[3] A
sheriff’s failure to make a return and to submit a return within the allowable
period constitutes inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official
duties, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[4]
Under
the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
respondent sheriff 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.[5]
Be
that as it may, considering that there has been no previous administrative case
against respondent sheriff and in order not to hamper the duties of his office,
instead of suspending him for a period of three (3) months without pay, we
reconsider our previous decision and lower the penalty to one (1) month and one
(1) day suspension without pay.
We
would like to reiterate once again that respondent sheriff’s compliance with
the Rules of Court is not merely directory but mandatory. He is expected to
know the rules of procedure pertaining to his functions as an officer of the
court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, our
Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN
T. REYES
Associate Justice