|
EMMA B. RAMOS, Complainant, -
versus - APOLLO
R. RAGOT, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-09-2600 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JJ. Promulgated: December 23, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
In
a sworn Affidavit-Complaint[1] dated
March 10, 2007, Emma B. Ramos charged Apollo R. Ragot, Sheriff III, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Complainant
alleged that she filed a criminal case against a Mrs. Neneth Kawaling (Mrs.
Kawaling) for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the MTCC in P60,000.00
in six (6) monthly installments of P10,000.00 each. However, for failure of the accused to comply
with the terms of the compromise, complainant filed a motion for execution
which the trial court granted and in connection therewith issued a Writ of
Execution[2] dated
August 14, 2006.
In
order to enforce the said writ, complainant coordinated with respondent
sheriff. On October 6, 2006, complainant
and her husband accompanied respondent sheriff to Mrs. Kawaling’s residence in
In
P1,000.00 from the complainant, who initially questioned the
sheriff’s demand since she and her husband bore all the expenses of their trip
to P1,000.00 which respondent acknowledged in a
receipt.[3] A week later, Mrs. Kawaling sent a check to
the court in the amount of P10,750.00 in partial payment of her
obligation.
In
the following months, complainant repeatedly followed up the full
implementation of the writ of execution with respondent since Mrs. Kawaling
failed to make any further payments. However,
respondent purportedly kept telling complainant to just wait for Mrs. Kawaling
to make voluntary payments since levying Mrs. Kawaling’s real properties would
take years.
On
January 18, 2007, respondent sheriff allegedly asked complainant for P500.00
to be used for his trip to the Register of Deeds in
On
February 1, 2007, respondent handed complainant a copy of what appeared to be a
court-approved Itemized Estimated Amount of Expenses[5] dated
October 6, 2006 in the amount of P4,100.00 but he allegedly told her
that there was no need to deposit the said amount in court. Instead, he told complainant to just give him
some amount for his trip back to
By
this time, complainant was beginning to feel that the sheriff was stonewalling
or neglecting her case. In a letter[6] dated
February 14, 2007, complainant, through counsel, requested the respondent to
complete the implementation of the writ of execution. Respondent replied to the aforementioned
letter and furnished complainant with a copy of Sheriff’s Return of Service[7] dated
February 22, 2007, indicating partial satisfaction of the writ of execution. Thereafter, no further action was made by the
respondent sheriff with regard to the writ. As of the time of the filing of the complaint,
the amount of P33,000.00 purportedly remained unsatisfied.
The
foregoing circumstances led complainant to believe that respondent is in direct
contact and communication with Mrs. Kawaling and the two are the ones deciding
when and how much to pay complainant to complainant’s prejudice. Hence, complainant was constrained to file
this administrative case against respondent.
Then
Court Administrator Christopher Lock, in his 1st Indorsement[8] dated
March 28, 2007, required respondent sheriff to comment on the complaint.
In
his Comment[9] dated
April 26, 2007, respondent presented his own version of what happened. Respondent confirmed that on October 6, 2006,
complainant and her husband accompanied him to P1,000.00 for gasoline, meals and the fees
paid at the Butuan City Assessor’s Office. Complainant’s husband then allegedly made him
sign a ready-made receipt to acknowledge their expenses to
On
January 18, 2007, respondent sheriff claimed that he reminded complainant about
the Notice of Levy on Mrs. Kawaling’s real properties. According to respondent, complainant’s
husband could not drive for them because of a marital spat so he simply asked
for money to serve said notice in P500.00 which
respondent acknowledged in a receipt.
The following day, respondent served the Notice of Levy on the Register
of Deeds of Butuan City and allegedly incurred expenses in the total amount of P559.00.
On
February 1, 2007, respondent personally provided complainant a copy of the approved
Itemized Amount of Expenses dated October 6, 2006. A few weeks later, respondent allegedly sent
a letter[10]
to complainant requesting her to deposit the approved estimated amount of
expenses with the Clerk of Court so he can continue with the implementation of
the writ. Although complainant failed to
make the deposit, respondent still went to the Register of Deeds of Butuan City
to obtain the Notice of Levy on April 20, 2007.
Respondent
sheriff denied having solicited the amount of P1,000.00 from complainant,
but acknowledged that he signed a prepared receipt which complainant’s husband
said would be used in claiming for reimbursement of expenses they incurred in
going to P500.00 when he went back to
Respondent
denied having told complainant that there was no need to deposit the approved
estimate of sheriff’s expenses with the Clerk of Court, as in fact, he even
wrote a letter dated February 15, 2007 to complainant to that effect. Likewise, he denied transacting directly with
Mrs. Kawaling without the complainant’s knowledge.
Finally,
respondent claimed that he executed the writ before the sheriff’s expenses
could be deposited because of the complainant’s insistence as the latter was
worried that Mrs. Kawaling would abscond.
In her reply-affidavit, complainant
pointed out that respondent did not deny nor confirm personally receiving the
amount of P1,000.00 from her on October 6, 2006; that while the Itemized
Estimated Amount of Expenses was dated October 6, 2006, the document was given
to her only on February 1, 2007; that respondent went back to the Register of
Deeds of Butuan City on April 20, 2007, notwithstanding the absence of any
deposit from the complainant, only because the present administrative complaint
had already been filed against him; and that only after her counsel demanded
from respondent to complete the enforcement of the writ did the latter execute the
Sheriff’s Return of Service dated February 22, 2007.
In
the agenda report dated November 24, 2008, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) made the following evaluation and recommendation:[11]
EVALUATION: After thorough review of the
records of this case, this Office believes that respondent sheriff should be
disciplined for non-compliance with the requirements in the implementation of
the writ of execution.
First, we observed that
respondent sheriff failed to follow the procedure relative to the expenses to
be incurred in implementing the writ.
Section (10) (1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court requires the sheriff to
prepare and submit to the court for approval a statement of the estimated
expenses. Upon approval of the 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.
In this case, however, respondent did not wait for the approval of his
statement of estimated expenses and served the writ without the required
deposit due to the insistence of complainant who got worried that accused might
abscond. Respondent should not have
deviated from the rules of procedures.
He should have waited for complainant to make the deposit because he is
obliged to follow the prescribed procedure regardless of the persuasion coming
from the complainant. Had he done so, he
could have avoided any misunderstanding with the complainant as to the
sheriff’s expenses.
Respondent’s failure to comply
with the requirements in the implementation of the writ of execution led him to
commit his second mistake. We noticed
that respondent sheriff failed to make a return on the implementation of the
writ of execution after every thirty (30) days from receipt of the writ.
Respondent stated in his return
that he got hold of the writ on October 4, 2006 but he made his first and only
return on February 22, 2007. Since the
judgment was not satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of
the writ, respondent should have made the periodic report every thirty (30)
days stating the reason/s therefore as required by section 14, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court. Had he done so,
complainant would have no basis charging him of neglect of duty.
Simple Neglect of Duty under
Section 52, B(1), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service, is punishable with suspension for a period of one (1) month and
one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. Based on our record, this is the first
administrative case filed against respondent sheriff. Hence, we are of the opinion that the penalty
of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day is proper.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended that this case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular
administrative matter and APOLLO R. RAGOT, Sheriff, MTCC, Gingoog City, be
found GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and be SUSPENDED for One (1) Month and
One (1) day, the same to take effect immediately upon receipt of the Court’s
decision.
In
its Resolution[12]
of January 19, 2009, the Court had the instant case re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter and required the parties to manifest whether they were
submitting the same on the basis of the pleadings filed. In separate manifestations, complainant and
respondent separately manifested their conformity to a resolution of the case
on the pleadings.
We
concur with the OCA’s finding and recommended penalty.
At
the outset, we must reiterate that the conduct and behavior of everyone
connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is
circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility, necessarily so if the
faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary are to be maintained.[13] This Court has repeatedly warned that by the
very nature of their functions, sheriffs are under obligation to perform the
duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability,
and must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and above all else, be
above suspicion.[14]
From
the record, the following facts have been established:
(a)
Respondent
received the Writ of Execution on October 4, 2006.
(b)
Respondent
served the writ on Mrs. Kawaling on October 6, 2006 and acknowledged receiving the
amount of P1,000.00 directly from complainant by signing a receipt
therefor.
(c)
On
January 18, 2007, respondent asked for and received from complainant the amount
of P500.00, as also evidenced by a receipt.
(d)
Respondent
handed a court-approved Itemized Estimated Amount of Expenses dated October 6,
2006 relative to the execution of the writ to complainant only on February 1,
2007.
(e)
In
a letter dated February 14, 2007, the counsel for complainant requested the
respondent to undertake the complete enforcement of the writ of execution.
(f)
Thereafter,
complainant received from the respondent a Sheriff’s Return of Service dated
February 22, 2007, reporting therein the partial satisfaction of the writ of
execution. This was the first return of service executed by respondent sheriff
since receiving the writ of execution and serving the same on Mrs. Kawaling
more than four (4) months prior.
(g)
Complainant
filed an administrative case against respondent sheriff on March 26, 2007.
(h)
Respondent
submitted to the Court another Sheriff’s Return of Service[15] dated
October 17, 2007 reporting the full satisfaction of the writ of execution.
In
the implementation of writs or processes of the court for which expenses are to
be incurred, sheriffs are mandated to comply with Section 10, Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No.
04-2-04-SC, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Sec. 10. Sheriffs, process
servers and other persons serving processes.
x x x
With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs
issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding 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 with 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, and the
sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor. (emphasis
ours)
In
this case, respondent sheriff served the writ of execution on October 6, 2006
without presenting complainant with a court approved estimate of expenses and without
the required deposit from the complainant to the clerk of court. While the records reveal the existence of an approved
Itemized Estimated Amount of Expenses[16] dated
October 6, 2006, a copy of that same itemized estimated expenses was only given
to complainant on February 1, 2007 which was almost four (4) months after the
writ of execution was served on the losing party.
Likewise in contravention of Rule 141,
respondent directly received money from the complainant. Respondent’s
bare denial that he solicited the amount of P1,000.00 from the
complainant on October 6, 2006 cannot be given credence for he had even signed
a receipt for such amount.
We
likewise cannot sustain respondent’s justification that his solicitation and
receipt of the amount of P500.00 from complainant on January 18, 2007 were
allowed under Section 10 of Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004.[17] Said circular merely contains the guidelines
in the allocation of the Legal Fees Collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
as amended, between the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund and the
Judiciary Development Fund and nowhere in Section 10 thereof is it provided
that sheriffs are tasked to directly solicit and receive money for expenses
relative to the implementation of a writ of execution. On the contrary, said Section 10 of Amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 reproduces the proviso in Rule 141 that with
regard to sheriff's expenses in executing a writ, the amount to be
estimated by the sheriff is subject to the approval of the court
after which 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.
In
any event, whether the money was solicited by respondent or voluntarily given
to him is of no moment. The fact remains
that he personally accepted money from complainant to
implement the writ of execution and, worse, without furnishing the
latter an estimate of expenses approved by the court in violation of the
rules. As we likewise ruled in Letter of Atty. Socorro M. Villamer-Basilla:[18]
x x x Whether the amount was advanced to him
[respondent sheriff] by the counsel for the plaintiffs or he offered to return
the excess to the plaintiff is beside the point, his mere acceptance of the
amount without the prior approval of the court and without him issuing a
receipt therefor is clearly a misconduct in office.
Moreover,
in Bunagan v. Ferraren,[19] this Court
categorically declared that “[a]
sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant
without observing the proper procedure, to do so would be tantamount to
dishonesty or extortion.”
Indeed,
respondent sheriff should have followed the rules of procedure pertaining to
the collection of the fees and expenses to be incurred in the implementation of
the writ of execution. No matter how
insistent the winning party is a sheriff should take no procedural shortcuts so
as to avoid any misunderstanding and/or dispel any suspicion against his
integrity.
Another
infraction committed by respondent sheriff was having failed to render periodic
reports every thirty (30) days from his receipt of the writ of execution in
violation of Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
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
the periodic report shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and
shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the
parties.
(emphasis ours)
In
addition, a sheriff must make periodic reports on partially satisfied or wholly
unsatisfied writs in accordance, in order to apprise the court and the parties
of the proceedings undertaken in connection with the writs. The periodic reporting on the status of the
writs must be done by the sheriff every thirty (30) days regularly and
consistently until they are returned fully satisfied. [20]
Here,
it was only on February 22, 2007 that respondent made a Sheriff’s Return[21]
reporting partial satisfaction of the writ.
Undeniably, he likewise failed to submit periodic reports regarding the
status of the writ every thirty (30) days thereafter until said writ was fully
satisfied.
This
Court has held time and again that:[22]
Sheriffs
play an important role in the administration of justice and as agents of the
law, high standards are expected of them.
They are duty-bound to know and to comply with the very basic rules
relative to the implementation of writs of execution.
It is undisputed that the most
difficult phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment. The officer charged with this delicate task
is the sheriff. The sheriff, as an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a
final judgment depends, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his
behavior. Execution is the fruit and end
of the suit and is the life of the law.
He is to execute the directives of the court therein strictly in
accordance with the letter thereof and without any deviation therefrom.
(citations omitted)
As
correctly found by the OCA, respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty
which under Section 52, B(1), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service, is punishable with suspension for a period of one
(1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense.
In
Danao v. Franco, Jr.,[23]
the Court imposed a two-month suspension for simple neglect of duty on the
respondent sheriff who simply demanded from complainant the sum of P5,000.00
without first furnishing the latter the estimate or detail of the expenses and
without securing court approval. But in Letter of Atty. Socorro M. Villamer-Basilla,[24]
where the respondent sheriff received the amount of P1,000.00 from the
plaintiffs without furnishing them the estimate or detail of expenses and
without securing the court’s approval, we imposed a one-month suspension from
office.
In
Pesongco v. Estoya,[25] where a
complaint for inefficiency was made against the respondent sheriff, we imposed
a one-month suspension for simple neglect of duty, said sheriff having delayed
the full implementation of a writ of execution and failed to render periodic
returns thereof to the court.
For
soliciting and directly receiving money from complainant, failing to file a
timely return and failing to execute the writ with dispatch, the respondent
sheriff, in Bunagan v. Ferraren,[26]
was found guilty of grave misconduct, dereliction of duty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and was meted the penalty of
suspension for three (3) months, mitigated in consideration of respondent’s
long years of service and his previous clean record.
In
the recent case of Mariñas v. Florendo,[27]
we imposed a fine equivalent to respondent's
one-month salary instead of a one-month suspension
from office, ratiocinating that the
sheriff’s work would be left unattended by reason of his absence and such may
be used as another excuse to justify his inaction and inefficiency in finally
implementing the subject writs.
Here,
the writ of execution has already been fully implemented as per Sheriff’s
Return of Service[28] dated
October 17, 2007. Furthermore, we note
that this is respondent's first offense.
After consideration of the relevant rules and the current state of
jurisprudence, a suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day, or the minimum
penalty, would be properly imposed on respondent.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Apollo R. Ragot, Sheriff III of the MTCC,
SO
ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 8-9.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Letter of Atty. Socorro M. Villamer-Basilla, RTC, Br. 4, Legazpi City on the alleged improper conduct of Manuel L. Arimado, Sheriff IV, A.M. No. P-06-2128 (formerly A.M. No. 04-6-313-RTC), February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 455, 458.
[14]
[15] Rollo, p. 119.
[16] Supra note 5.
[17] This circular took effect on August 20, 2004.
[18] Supra note 13 at 460.
[19] A.M. No. P-06-2173, January
28, 2008, 542 SCRA 355, 363.
[20] Mariñas v.
Florendo, A.M. No. P-07-2304, February 12,
2009.
[21] Supra note 7.
[22] Supra note 20.
[23] A.M. No. P-02-1569, November 13, 2002, 391 SCRA 515.
[24] Supra note 13.
[25] A.M. No. P-06-2131, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 239.
[26] Supra note 19.
[27] Supra note 20.
[28] Supra note 15.