THIRD DIVISION
|
DOMINGO PEÑA, JR., Complainant, - versus - ACHILLES ANDREW
V. REGALADO II, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of
the Clerk of Court, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. P-10-2772
(Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 07-2615-P) Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February 16, 2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
In
a Letter[1]
dated April 2, 2007, complainant Domingo Peña, Jr. reported to the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) the alleged unethical conduct of respondent Sheriff
IV Achilles Regalado II in implementing the writ of execution issued in
relation to People v. Domingo Peña, Jr.
and Domingo Francisco (Criminal Case No. 1852 for Falsification of Public Documents). The judgment on execution ordered complainant and Domingo Francisco to each pay a
fine of P5,000.00 and damages in
the amount of P30,000.00 to private complainant, Flora Francisco.
Complainant averred that respondent collected from him P13,000.00, P4,500.00
and P2,000.00 on September 6, 2006, November 29, 2006, and December 29,
2006, respectively, without issuing official receipts. He was merely issued
handwritten acknowledgment receipts, which he attached to the complaint as
Exhibits “A,” “B,” and “C.”
In
his Comment,[2]
respondent admitted that he received the said amounts from complainant, but
claimed that he already delivered them to Mrs. Francisco, as evidenced by the
acknowledgment receipts signed by the latter. According to respondent, complainant
went to his office on September 6, 2006 and gave him P13,000.00. On the
same day, he went to Francisco’s house to give her the amount, but the latter
was not around. Respondent allegedly went back to Francisco’s house the
following day and gave her the money. Later on, he collected the two succeeding
payments at complainant’s house and immediately gave the amounts collected to
Francisco. Respondent claimed that the complaint was filed to harass and
prevent him from further executing the judgment against complainant.
The
Court referred the complaint to Judge Jaime E. Contreras, Executive Judge of
the
During the hearing, complainant
testified that he was not issued official receipts for the money he gave to
respondent, only handwritten provisional receipts. He said he knew, however, that
respondent already gave the money to Francisco. He then informed Judge
Contreras that he was no longer interested in pursuing the case because of his health
condition.[4]
When interrogated, respondent
confessed that he did not remit the money he collected from complainant to the
Office of the Clerk of Court. He allegedly
did so to spare Francisco, who is already very old, the inconvenience of filing
a motion to release the money. He pointed out that such procedure was practical,
considering that Francisco’s house is only adjacent to that of the complainant.
He explained that he was not able to give the P13,000.00 to Francisco on
the same day he collected it from complainant, because she was not around at
that time; and so, he gave it to her the following day.[5] He said that he has been a sheriff for 12
years already, and he had followed the same procedure in some of the cases
assigned to him for execution.[6]
Francisco confirmed that she received
P13,000.00 from respondent on September 6, 2006, the date indicated in
the provisional receipt. She, however, claimed that she did not receive P4,500.00
and P2,000.00, respectively, on November 29, 2006 and December 29, 2006,
the dates indicated in the provisional receipts.[7] Francisco said that she signed the two latter
receipts on the assurance of respondent that he would come back with the said
amounts.[8]
The records reveal that, when
respondent failed to return and give Francisco the amounts of P4,500.00
and P2,000.00, she wrote Judge Contreras a Letter dated June 20, 2007,[9]
complaining about respondent’s failure to collect the balance of the judgment
award after the lapse of two years. As a result, Judge Contreras required Francisco
and respondent to appear before him, during which the judge advised respondent
to just pay the balance of the amount collected. It was only after that conference that
Francisco received the amounts of P4,500.00 and P2,000.00.[10]
When confronted, respondent denied that
it was only after the conference that he gave the money to Francisco, stating that
the latter may have already forgotten what actually transpired, since it
happened three years ago.[11]
Judge Contreras disagreed. On the
contrary, he found that Francisco was still mentally alert despite her age and,
consequently, gave her testimony more credence. Judge Contreras also noted that this was the
second offense for which respondent had been investigated, and the evidence was
clear that in both cases[12]
respondent did not follow basic rules in implementing the writs of execution. He took into consideration respondent’s
admission that he has been doing such irregular acts or practices for the past 12
years in several cases assigned to him. He then recommended that respondent be
suspended for 15 days from service without pay, with a stern warning that the
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
In a Resolution dated September 2,
2009, the Court referred Judge Contreras’ report to the OCA for evaluation,
report and recommendation.
In a Memorandum dated January 7,
2010, the OCA found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty and
recommended that a more severe penalty be imposed upon him, thus:
1.
That the
instant administrative complaint, dated 2 April 2007, of Domingo Peña, be
RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
2.
That
respondent Sheriff IV Achilles Andrew Regalado II, Regional Trial Court, OCC,
Naga City, be found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and DISHONESTY; and
3.
That he
be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with perpetual
disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, including
government owned and controlled corporation.
The Court likewise finds respondent
administratively liable, but modifies the OCA’s designation of the offense and
the penalty imposed.
Despite complainant’s manifest apathy towards the
outcome of this administrative case, the Court is duty-bound to proceed with
its investigation and resolution to determine whether respondent has, in fact,
erred in his conduct. Complainant's lack of interest in pursuing the case will
not exonerate respondent from any administrative action. It will not divest
this Court of jurisdiction to determine the truth behind the complaint, as the
need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and
its agencies and instrumentalities should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of the
complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein.[13]
Sheriffs are officers of the court who serve and execute
writs addressed to them by the court, and who prepare and submit returns on
their proceedings. As officers of the court, they must discharge their duties
with great care and diligence. They have to perform faithfully and accurately
what is incumbent upon them and show at all times a high degree of professionalism
in the performance of their duties.[14] Despite being exposed
to
hazards that come with the implementation of the judgment, sheriffs must perform their duties by the book.[15]
Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court lays down the
procedure to be followed by the sheriff in implementing money judgments:
SEC. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how
enforced. —
(a) Immediate payment on demand. — The
officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from
the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the
writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash,
certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of
payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the judgment debt under proper
receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if
present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper
receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the
same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ.
If
the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not present to receive
payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid payment to the
executing sheriff. The latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his
possession within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued
the writ, or if the same is not practicable, deposit said amounts to a
fiduciary account in the nearest government depository bank of the Regional
Trial Court of the locality.
The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for
the remittance of the deposit to the account of the court that issued the writ
whose clerk of court shall then deliver said payment to the judgment obligee in
satisfaction of the judgment. The
excess, if any, shall be delivered to the judgment obligor while the lawful
fees shall be retained by the clerk of court for disposition as provided by
law. In no case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by check
be made payable to him.
When the
judgment obligee is not present at the time the judgment obligor makes the
payment, the sheriff is authorized to receive it. However, the money received must be remitted to
the clerk of court within the same day or, if not practicable, deposited in a
fiduciary account with the nearest government depository bank. Evidently,
sheriffs are not permitted to retain
the money in their
possession beyond the day when the payment was made or to deliver the money
collected directly to the judgment obligee.
Respondent’s
excuse for not turning over the money to the clerk of court does not persuade
us enough to arrive at a contrary finding. He explains that it was practical to
directly give the money he collected from complainant to Francisco, whose house
is just adjacent to that of the complainant. Firstly, complainant could have directly made
the payment to Francisco or her representative. Secondly, considering that the
first payment was handed to him by complainant in his office, respondent could
have easily turned it over to the clerk of court. Instead, respondent went to
Francisco’s house to give her the money, presumably as an act of good will.
Respondent may
have been motivated by a noble intention when he directly gave the P13,000.00
to Francisco, but the same cannot be said of the two succeeding payments.
Francisco had to file a complaint against respondent before the latter delivered
the same to her. Though respondent insists
that he gave the amounts to Francisco on the same day he received them, this is
belied by Francisco’s positive testimony that she received the money several months
after the dates indicated in the receipts. This is corroborated by Francisco’s letter-complaint
to Judge Contreras and her account of what transpired in the conference that
the latter arranged.
Good faith on the part of respondent,
or lack of it, in proceeding to properly execute his mandate would be of no
moment, for he is chargeable with the knowledge that being an officer of the
court tasked thereto, it behooves him to make due compliance.[16] As
implementing officers of the court, sheriffs should set the example by
faithfully observing and not brazenly disregarding the Rules of Court.[17]
Incredibly, respondent even blatantly
admitted that he followed the same procedure in some of the other writs of
execution that he enforced.
Moreover, the records show that, upon
receipt from complainant (judgment obligor) of three payments, respondent
merely issued handwritten acknowledgment receipts to him. This act constitutes
a violation of Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting
and Auditing Manual which provides “that no payment of any nature shall be
received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment
thereof.”[18]
Accordingly, we find
respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
for not following the proper procedure in enforcing writs of execution. Sheriffs have the duty to perform faithfully
and accurately what is incumbent upon them, and any method of execution falling
short of the requirement of the law deserves reproach and should not be
countenanced.[19] The Court
will not hesitate to impose the ultimate penalty on those who fall short of
their accountabilities. The Court condemns and does not tolerate any conduct
that violates the norms of public accountability and diminishes public
confidence in the judicial system.[20]
Section
52(A)(20) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases classifies
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service as a
grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year
for the first offense.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered, finding respondent
Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II GUILTY
of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and is hereby SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year without
pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt
with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Id at 55-56.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Two other administrative complaints are pending against respondent sheriff: A.M. IPI-09-3133-P and A.M. IPI-07-2614-P.
[13] Bunagan v. Ferraren, A.M. No. P-06-2173,
January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA
355, 362.
[14] Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1786, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 265, 275.
[15] Caja v. Nanquil, 481 Phil. 488, 518-519 (2004).
[16] Zarate v. Judge Untalan, 494 Phil. 208, 217 (2005).
[17]
[18] Lopez v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-05-2017, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 26, 34.
[19] Mangubat v. Camino, A.M. No. P-06-2115, February 23, 2006, 483 SCRA 163,169-170.
[20] Velasco v. Tablizo, A.M. No. P-05-1999, February 22, 2008, 546 SCRA 403, 412.