|
DR.
SALOME U. JORGE, Complainant, - versus - CARLOS
P. DIAZ, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Branch 20, Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-07-2332 [Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 07-2511-P] Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, BRION, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: September
4, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
In a Decision rendered in Civil Case No. 356 against
the therein defendants Carlos T. Jorge and his wife-herein complainant Salome
U. Jorge, Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacurong City disposed
as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, the Court orders defendants Carlos T. Jorge and Dra. Salome U. Jorge to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs spouses Antonio dela Cruz and Elena dela Cruz, the following:
a) P100,000.00, as principal obligation with legal interest from January 8, 1993 until full settlement thereof;
b) P20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
c) P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
d) Cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[1] (Underscoring supplied).
Carlos
P. Diaz, Deputy Sheriff, herein respondent, in implementation of the Writ of
Execution issued following the finality of the Decision, garnished the P14,279.50
mid-year bonus of complainant without issuing any receipt therefor.
In connection with another case, Civil Case No. 703,
“Heirs of Francisca Penera represented by
Dr. Salome U. Jorge, Sabina M. Urlanda, Cornelia Urlanda and Orlando P.
Urlanda v. Rural Bank of Tacurong, Inc. represented by its president Jose Lagon
and Armando Lagon,” in which complainant was the representative of the
therein plaintiff, complainant alleged that respondent escorted the President
of the therein defendant Rural Bank of Tacurong, Inc., along with others, in forcibly
entering her farm and thereafter burning the kitchen of the farmhouse, taking
some personal items, and destroying some fruit-bearing trees.
Hence, spawned complainant’s filing of the present
administrative complaint against respondent.
In his Comment, respondent, virtually admitting not
issuing a receipt to complainant for garnishing the proceeds of her mid-year
bonus, explained that he signed the payroll reflecting the grant and receipt of
the bonus after receiving the cash proceeds thereof in the presence of the
complainant.
Respecting his questioned acts in connection with Civil
Case No. 703, respondent found the same undocumented, hence, they may not hold
ground.
After evaluating the complaint, the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) came up with the following observations:
Respondent sheriff categorically denies all
the accusations charged against him.
However, the best evidence to prove that he was not remiss in his duties
was the return of the writ. x x x
x x x x
It appears that respondent has not
submitted his return on the garnishment of complainant’s mid-year bonus. Such failure amounts to simple neglect of
duty which has been defined as failure of an employee to give one’s
attention to the task expected of him, which signifies a disregard of a duty
resulting from carelessness or indifference.
On the other hand, the charge of oppression
regarding the destruction of the farm trees and the taking of her farmhands’
beds was not substantiated with any evidence.
The burden is on the complainant to
substantiate the allegations stated in the complaint. Hence, if the same were unfounded, the
respondent is not required to raise his defenses.[2] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The OCA thereupon recommended that the
administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, and
that respondent be fined P1,000 for simple neglect of duty with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.[3]
On July 2, 2007, this Court noted the Complaint and the
Comment, re-docketed the Complaint as a regular administrative matter, and
required the parties to manifest within ten days from notice whether they were
willing to submit the matter for resolution on the basis of the pleadings on
file.[4]
In the meantime or on April 29, 2008, complainant
filed another administrative complaint against respondent with the following charges:
1.
DISHONESTY
– Sheriff IV Carlos P. Diaz, RTC, Branch 20,
2.
GRAVE
ABUSE OF AUTHORITY – Even after Sheriff IV Carlos P. Diaz already collected the
total amount of P165,781.00 to satisfy the judgment against me in Civil Case No.
356, he again executed the writ of execution in the same case. In connection therewith, he again took my
bonuses including PIB in the amount of P72,000.00 from the municipal treasurer
of Columbio, Sultan Kudarat, to satisfy the judgment in the same Civil Case No.
356.
3.
SHERIFF
IV CARLOS P. DIAZ should be charge[d] of [sic]
the crime of Estafa through perjury for making untruthful statements of fact
relative to his enforcement of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 356 and
collecting therefor excess [sic] amount
from the accounts of the undersigned in the office of the municipal treasurer
of Columbio, Sultan Kudarat last December, 2007, although the judgment
obligation of the undersigned had already been overpaid.[5]
Complainant in fact sent a letter-complaint of
October 2, 2008 addressed
to the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao reiterating her charge that respondent had
illegally collected her bonus in excess of the judgment debt in Civil Case No.
356,[6]
which letter the Deputy Ombudsman endorsed to the OCA.[7]
In a still subsequent letter of February
9, 2009, complainant informed the OCA that respondent again garnished her
mid-year, year-end, and extra bonuses for 2008,[8]
albeit she did not state the amounts thereof.
In his March 12, 2009 Comment on these
subsequent complaints, respondent claimed that the amounts taken from complainant’s
bonuses – which, as of March 12, 2009, totaled P218,000 – represented
partial satisfaction of the judgment debt.[9]
The Court notes from the copy of the sheriff’s
report submitted by complainant that respondent had collected a total of P149,485.50
from 2006-2007.[10] From the earlier-quoted dispositive portion
of the judgment rendered against complainant, the principal obligation of P100,000
was to bear legal interest from January 8, 1993. Twelve percent of P100,000 for every
year[11]
since January 8, 1993 or P12,000 every year up to this year, 2009, would
yield P192,000. Adding this amount of interest to the P100,000
principal obligation, plus the P20,000 exemplary damages, and P20,000
attorney’s fees, would yield a total of P332,000 as of this year,
excluding costs of suit. Respondent
cannot thus be said to have collected amounts in excess of the judgment debt
inclusive of interest, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
From a copy of a Manifestation complainant
submitted to the trial court itemizing the amount she had paid as of January
27, 2007 totalling P165,781,[12] the Court notes that the itemized amounts include
some checks dated 1995, which could not have been in settlement of the 2003
judgment debt.
At all events, considering
respondent’s own information in his Comment to the supplemental/subsequent complaints
that the total garnished amounts as of January 16, 2009 was P218,000,[13] the
same still falls short of the total judgment debt of P332,000 as of this
year.
It is with respect to respondent’s
receipt of the proceeds of complainant’s bonus in June 2006 that this Court, as did the OCA, faults
respondent for being remiss in his duties in failing to submit a return of the
writ. While respondent belatedly executed
a Sheriff’s Report dated May 13, 2008, the same fails to comply with the
mandate of Section 14 of Rule 39 reading:
Section 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. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
In fine, respondent is indeed guilty
of simple neglect of duty. Under Rule IV, Section 52 (B) (1) of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the first offense
of simple neglect of duty is penalized with suspension for one month and one
day to six months.
As did the OCA, the Court finds, too,
that the charge for oppression against respondent was unsubstantiated and
should thus be dismissed.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Deputy Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz of the Regional Trial Court of
Tacurong City is found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and is SUSPENDED for
one month and one day, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will be dealt with more severely. The
charge for oppression is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 87.
[2] Id. at 2-3.
[3] Id. at 3.
[4] Id. at 56.
[5] Id. at 60.
[6] Id. at 74.
[7] Id. at 73.
[8] Id. at 116-117.
[9] Id. at 148-149.
[10] Id. at 75.
[11] With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code;
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of the legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. (Citations omitted). (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 95-97).
[12] Id. at. 77-78.
[13] Id. at 148.