SECOND
DIVISION
DALMACIO Z.
TOMBOC, A.M. No. P-07-2322
Complainant,
Present:
- versus - CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
DEL
CASTILLO, and
ABAD, JJ.
SHERIFFS LIBORIO
M.
VELASCO, JR.,
MEDAR T.
PADAO, and
STEPHEN R.
BENGUA, all of
the
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, Promulgated:
DIPOLOG CITY,
Respondents. April 23, 2010
x- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before
the Court is an administrative complaint for abuse of authority filed by Dalmacio Z. Tomboc (complainant)
against Sheriffs Liborio M. Velasco, Jr., (Velasco), Medar T. Padao (Padao),
and Stephen R. Bengua (Bengua)[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City.
The Antecedent Facts
Sometime in the last week of May or early part of June 2003,
Velasco went to Barangay Silano, Piρan, Zamboanga del Norte to serve a writ of
demolition in Spl. Civil Case No. 645.
Complainant resides in the place, where he also has his piggery and
poultry businesses. The subject property
of the writ covered Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A.
Complainant informed Velasco that his house was constructed on Lot No.
81-B which he acquired from Erlinda Naranjo by pacto de retro sale. Velasco told complainant that he would bring
a surveyor at the time of the demolition proceedings.
On
8 July 2003, complainant received a notice of demolition, signed by
Velasco, from the Provincial
Sheriff. However, due to lack of time,
complainant was not able to take any legal action on the matter.
On
10 July 2003, Velasco and his companions started the demolition of Leonardo
Naranjos
house. The following day, Velasco and
his companions demolished complainants house, despite complainants pleas and insistence that his house was erected on
Lot No. 81-B which was not covered by the writ of demolition.
Respondents,
in their joint comment, alleged that the complaint resulted from the
implementation of the writ of demolition issued by the Municipal Trial Court of
Piρon, La Libertad, Zamboanga del Norte in Spl. Civil Action No. P-645. They alleged that the case was decided on 5
August 1995 while complainant came into the picture only sometime in 1999. Respondents further alleged that complainants allegation that his house erected
on Lot No. 81-B should not have been demolished had no basis because Lot No.
81-B was within the 9.4607 hectares of land registered in the name of Rodolfo
Galleposo.
In
its 1 December 2004 Resolution, this Court assigned the case to Executive Judge
Soledad A. Acaylar (Judge Acaylar) of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City,
Branch 7, for investigation, report and recommendation. However, Judge Acaylar requested to be
relieved as investigating judge because Padao was an employee in her sala. The case was assigned to Judge Porferio E.
Mah (Judge Mah).
The Findings of the of the
Investigating Judge
During
the investigation, Velasco testified that while Padao and Bengua were present
during the demolition, they did not participate in the demolition of
complainants
house because the writ of demolition was assigned to him.
In
his Report and Recommendation[2]
dated 25 April 2006, Judge Mah noted
that the writ of demolition covered only houses or structures constructed on
Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A. Judge Mah found
that complainants house was constructed on Lot No. 81-B, as testified to by
Geodetic Engineer Willjado Jimeno. Judge
Mah stated that Velasco should have been more cautious in the performance of
his duties, and he should have required the prevailing parties to conduct a
relocation survey of Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A when complainant argued that his
house was built on Lot No. 81-B.
Judge
Mah recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Padao and Bengua. Judge Mah further recommended that Velasco be
required to restore complainants house to its previous condition prior to the
demolition, and if it could not be done, to pay complainant its equivalent
value. Judge Mah further recommended
that Velasco be imposed a fine of P3,000 with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
The Findings of the OCA
In
its 13 September 2006 Resolution, this Court referred Judge Mahs Report and Recommendation to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and
recommendation.
In
its Memorandum dated 22 January 2007, the OCA found Velasco guilty of
inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and recommended
that he be meted the penalty of suspension for six months with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with
more severely. As regards the damages
suffered by complainant, the OCA recommended that he be informed that an
appropriate remedy is available to him.
The
Ruling of this Court
The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well-taken,
except for the recommended penalty.
It is clear that Velasco failed to exercise due diligence in
the performance of his duties. The writ
of demolition covered only Lot Nos. 80-A and 81-A. He was informed beforehand that complainants house was constructed on Lot No. 81-B.
He relied on the representative of the plaintiff in Spl. Civil Case No. 645 who told him that complainants house should be included in the
demolition instead of conducting a relocation survey on the areas involved in
the case.[3]
We reiterate that sheriffs, as public officers, are
repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform the duties of
their office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their abilities.[4] Sheriffs are bound to use reasonable skill
and diligence in the performance of their official duties, particularly where
the rights of individuals might be jeopardized by their neglect.[5] In this case, Velasco failed to act with
caution in the implementation of the writ of demolition, which resulted to
damage to complainant.
The penalty for inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties is suspension ranging from six months and one
day to one year for the first offense.[6] We accordingly modify the penalty recommended
by the OCA.
As regards the complaint against Padao and Bengua, Velasco
himself testified that while they were
present during the demolition, they did not participate in the demolition of
complainants
house because the writ of demolition was assigned to him.[7] Therefore, the complaint against them should
be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, we find Sheriff Liborio M. Velasco,
Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City GUILTY of inefficiency
and incompetence in the performance of official duties and orders and SUSPEND
him from service for six months and one day without pay and other fringe
benefits including leave credits, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. We DISMISS the complaint against Medar
T. Padao and Stephen R. Bengua.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
[1] Velasco, Jr., Padao, and Bengua are collectively referred to in this case as respondents.
[2] Denominated Resolution.
[3] TSN, 23 February 2006, p. 21.
[4] Bernabe v. Eguia, 458 Phil. 97 (2003).
[5] Id.
[6] Lee v. Dela Cruz, A.M. No. P-05-1955, 12 November 2007, 537 SCRA 602, citing the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Resolution No. 991936, 31 August 1999.
[7] TSN, 23 February 2006, p. 27.