Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
|
ANTONIO T. RAMAS-UYPITCHING
JR., Complainant, - versus - VINCENT HORACE MAGALONA,
Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Bacolod City,
Respondent. |
AM.
No. P-07-2379 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
03-1742-P) Present:
CARPIO, j., Chairperson, nachura, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: November 17, 2010 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is an administrative complaint,[1] dated July
1, 2003, filed by complainant Antonio T. Ramas-Uypitching, Jr., manager of
Ramas-Uypitching Sons, Inc. (RUSI) Marketing, against Vincent Horace U.
Magalona, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Bacolod City,
Negros Occidental, for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty, relative to the
execution of judgment in Civil Case No. 4657, entitled Spouses Ireneo and
Mariles Geronca v. Powroll Construction Co., Inc., et al., where respondent
levied three (3) motorcycles belonging to RUSI Marketing even if said company
was never a party to the said case and, consequently, the actuation of
respondent created a bad image on the company and affected its business
dealings with suppliers, customers, and the public.
In his Affidavit[2] dated July 3, 2003, which
was appended to the complainant's complaint, Juan Jan Abrasaldo, branch manager
of RUSI Marketing, alleged that after a decision had been rendered by the trial
court in Civil Case No. 4657 in favor of therein plaintiffs, respondent, on
January 28, 2003, served a copy of the alias writ of execution upon RUSI
Marketing and proceeded to levy its three motorcycles. According to Abrasaldo, after he protested
the levy on the ground that RUSI Marketing was not a party to the case,
respondent left the premises, but later came back with a police officer, so he
was constrained to surrender the motorcycles to respondent.
In his Comment dated October 16, 2006, respondent countered
that he merely performed his duties and responsibilities as court sheriff,
pursuant to the Alias Writ of Execution dated January 7, 2003, which was issued
in connection with Civil Case No. 4657, directing the satisfaction of the
judgment against the properties of all the stockholders of therein defendant
Powroll Construction Co., Inc. (Powroll).
He averred that the three motorcycles, registered and owned by RUSI
Marketing, were levied because the stockholders[3] of therein
defendant Powroll were also the same stockholders of RUSI Marketing, as
reflected in the latter's company records.
He added that as a result of the implementation of the alias writ of
execution, both parties had an out of court settlement and, consequently,
therein plaintiff's counsel informed the trial court that judgment had been fully
satisfied.
Complainant, in his Rejoinder (should be Reply) to
Comment, dated November 6, 2006, maintained that the Alias Writ of Execution
was directed only against therein defendant Powroll and its stockholders and,
therefore, respondent acted beyond the scope of his authority when he levied
RUSI Marketing's three motorcycles on the pretext that the stockholders of
therein defendant Powroll and RUSI Marketing were the same. He argued that RUSI Marketing was a distinct
and separate entity from therein defendant Powroll and, therefore, beyond the
coverage of the Alias Writ of Execution.
He stated that Abrasaldo never revealed company records of its branches
to third parties and that RUSI Marketing only kept operations records, not the
stockholders’ record. He also said that
the out of court settlement was a private matter between the parties in the
civil case and, therefore, irrelevant to the issue of respondent's acting
beyond the scope of his authority.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent
guilty of grave misconduct for acting beyond the scope of his authority when he
implemented the writ of execution on RUSI Marketing, which was not a party to
the case, and recommended that the complaint against respondent be redocketed
as a regular administrative complaint and that respondent, being a first-time
offender, be suspended from the service for one (1) year with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely
in the future.
The OCA’s recommendation should be modified, in view of the
supervening event that respondent was already dismissed from the service during
the pendency of this case.[4]
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and they
should always hold inviolate and invigorate the tenet that a public office is a
public trust. Being in the grassroots of
our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are in close contact with
the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige
and integrity of the court. By the very
nature of their functions, sheriffs must conduct themselves with propriety and
decorum, so as to be above suspicion.[5] As such, they must discharge their
duties with due care and utmost diligence, because in serving the court's writs
and processes and in implementing the orders of the court, they cannot afford
to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the administration of
justice and, as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[6] Respondent was remiss in the performance of his
duty as an officer of the court as he failed to abide by what was ordained in
the alias writ.
The duty of a sheriff to execute a valid writ is ministerial
and not discretionary. When a writ is
placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any
instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and
promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He is supposed to execute the order of the
court strictly to the letter.[7] The Alias Writ of Execution,[8] dated
January 7, 2003, relative to Civil Case No. 4657, directed the respondent to
enforce the Decision dated October 23, 1996 of the Court of Appeals against the
named stockholders of therein defendant Powroll. Prudence dictates that he should have
determined with reasonable certainty the specific properties of therein
defendant Powroll which may be the proper subject of the levy on
execution.
A sheriff has no authority to levy on execution upon the
property of any person other than that of the judgment debtor. If he does so, the writ of execution affords
him no justification, for such act is not in obedience to the mandate of the
writ.[9] A sheriff oversteps his authority when he
disregards the distinct and separate personality of the corporation from that
of an officer and stockholder of the corporation by levying on the property of
the former in an action against the latter only. A corporation is clothed with a personality
separate and distinct from that of its stockholders, and that it may not be
held liable for the personal indebtedness of its stockholders.[10]
Sheriffs, as officers of the court
and agents of the law, are bound to use prudence, due care and diligence in the
discharge of their official duties. Where rights of individuals are jeopardized
by their actions, they may be properly fined, suspended or dismissed from
office by virtue of this Court’s administrative supervision over the judicial
branch of the government.[11]
In Del Rosario v. Bascar, Jr.,[12] therein
respondent deputy sheriff, in the process of enforcing the writ of execution of
a decision ordering specific performance and payment of a fine of P2,000.00, made an
unreasonable and unnecessary levy on three parcels of land. He allocated unto himself the power of the
court to pierce the veil of corporate entity and improvidently assuming that
since therein complainant was the treasurer of the corporation, they are one
and the same. In the absence of malice
on his part and prejudice caused to third party, respondent’s explanation that
he merely wanted to protect the interest of the prevailing parties over the
subject lots in controversy was taken into account and, accordingly, he was
merely fined in the amount of P5,000.00. In Booc
v. Bantuas,[13]
the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on therein respondent who,
despite being apprised by therein Presiding Judge that the sale should involve
only the shares of stock, proceeded to auction the property belonging to the
corporation based on the rationale that the levy on the property was impelled
partly by ignorance of Corporation Law and partly by mere overzealousness to
comply with his duties and not by bad faith or blatant disregard of the trial
court’s order. In Sibulo v. San Jose,[14] a fine of P5,000.00 was imposed on
therein sheriff for gross neglect in the performance of his duties when he failed
to implement the writ of execution with reasonable dispatch.
During the pendency of this case, herein
respondent was found guilty, in Geronca
v. Magalona,[15]
of dereliction of duty for failure to observe the proper procedure under Section
9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court in the collection of fees for his expenses
from the party requesting the execution of a writ and, also, of grave
misconduct and dishonesty for unlawfully collecting the P10,000.00 execution fee,
refusal to surrender the proceeds of the auction sale, and failure to turn over
the motorcycle keys to therein complainant despite repeated demands. Accordingly, respondent was dismissed from
the service with forfeiture of all his benefits, except accrued leave credits, and
disqualified from reemployment in any government agency, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
Respondent’s dismissal from the service does not preclude
his being adjudged administratively liable herein. Such fact does not render the present case
moot.[16] Despite being dismissed from the service, the
Court, in certain cases, imposed a fine, i.e.,
P20,000.00[17] and P40,000.00,[18] against
the erring court employee to be deducted from one’s accrued leave credits.
Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court finds respondent
guilty of violating Section 9 (b),[19] Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court, considered a less grave offense, when, instead of
faithfully implementing the alias writ upon the properties subject of the writ
therein defendant Powroll and its stockholders, he arrogated upon himself the
authority to levy the three motorcycles belonging to RUSI Marketing, which was
not even a party to the case. While
respondent's defense, that he enforced the alias writ upon RUSI Marketing on
the pretext that its stockholders are also the stockholders of therein
defendant Powroll, may be regarded as an act done in good faith, yet the same
is not totally acceptable. It may seem
that the list of stockholders of both companies are the same, but such fact did
not give respondent the blanket authority to undertake the levy on the
properties of RUSI Marketing as the said company was not named as a defendant
in Civil Case No. 4657 and there was no judgment rendered against it by reason
of the cause of action by therein plaintiff against therein defendant
Powroll. Moreover, RUSI Marketing is a
separate entity from that of its stockholders and, therefore, its properties do
not necessarily include the properties of its stockholders.
Section 53, Rule IV of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[20] provides
that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating,
and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall
be considered. Applying this rule, since
respondent is no longer a first-time offender (per A.M. No. P-07-2398,[21] where he
was dismissed from the service), such fact is considered an aggravating
circumstance which warrants an increase of the P5,000.00 fine supposedly
to be imposed on respondent and, corollarily, considering the good faith of
respondent, treated as mitigating circumstance, which attended the irregular
implementation of the subject alias writ, a fine of P20,000.00 is deemed appropriate,
to be deducted from his accrued leave credits, if any. Should his accrued leave credits be not
sufficient, then he is required to pay the amount of the fine directly to the
Court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Vincent Horace Magalona,
Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Bacolod City, is found GUILTY
of violation of Section 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In view of respondent’s previous dismissal
from the service, a FINE of P20,000.00 is instead
imposed on him, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits, if sufficient;
otherwise, he is ORDERED to pay the
amount of the fine directly to this Court.
The Employees
Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services of the Office of the Court
Administrator, is DIRECTED to
compute respondent’s accrued leave
credits, if any, and deduct therefrom the amount representing the payment of
the fine.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
[3] Segundo S. Ramas-Uypitching, Ernesto R. Ramas-Uypitching, Willis R. Ramas-Uypitching, Roberto R. Ramas-Uypitching, Sylvia R. Ramas-Uypitching, and Gina Ramas-Uypitching.
[4] Per verification, although the
present A.M. No. P-07-2379 against respondent (then his first administrative
offense) was filed prior to A.M. No. P-07-2398 (Ireneo Geronca v. Vincent Horace U. Magalona), however, the latter
case was decided earlier on February 13, 2008.
Respondent’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated October 24, 2008,
in A.M. No. P-07-2398, was denied with finality in the Court’s Resolution of
November 25, 2008.
[5] Caja v. Nanquil, 481 Phil. 488, 518 (2004).
[6] Teodosio v. Somosa, A.M. No. P-09-2610 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3072-P), August 13, 2009, 595 SCRA 539, 556.
[7] Sismaet v. Sabas, 473 Phil. 230, 239-240 (2004).
[8] Rollo, pp. 4-6.
TO:
The Ex-Officio Provincial
Sheriff of Negros Occidental or any of his lawful Deputies:
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, a Decision dated September 6, 1993 had been
rendered in the above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the preponderance of evidence to be
in favor of the plaintiffs, this Court renders judgment against the defendants
who are jointly and severally ordered to pay plaintiffs the following:
1)
P40,000.00
— representing for actual damages for the repair of the truck;
2)
P42,000.00
— representing unearned income of the truck from September 17, 1987 to
December, 1987;
3)
P20,000.00
— representing moral damages;
4)
P5,000.00
— exemplary damages;
5)
P2,000.00
— representing attorney's fees and P400.00 for every Court appearance;
and to pay the costs.
Defendants’ counterclaims
against plaintiffs are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
Furnish copies of this Decision to
counsels on record.
SO ORDERED.
(Sgd.) ANITA AMORA-DE CASTRO
Presiding Judge
WHEREAS,
the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in the
above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Court a quo is AFFIRMED with respect to the
defendants Powroll Construction Co., Inc. and Virgilio Roche only, the case is
DISMISSED as against defendant Segundo Ramas Uypitching.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO
ORDERED.
(Sgd.) SALOME A. MONTOYA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(Sgd.) GODARDO A. JACINTO (Sgd.)
MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
WHEREAS, an Order dated February 23, 1998
was issued in this case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Let
Writ of Execution be issued in this case.
SO
ORDERED.
(Sgd.) EMMA C. LABAYEN
Presiding Judge
WHEREAS,
on December 20, 2002, this Court issued an Order, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the Clerk of Court is hereby
ordered to issue as Alias Writ of Execution to enforce the Decision in this
case which has long become final and executory and which has remained
unsatisfied up to this date. As prayed for,
let an Alias Writ of Execution be issued against the following stockholders of
the defendant Corporation with unpaid subscriptions, to wit:
1.
Segundo
S. Ramas-Uypitching
2.
Ernesto
R. Ramas-Uypitching
3.
Willis
R. Ramas-Uypitching
4.
Roberto
R. Rams-Uypitching
5.
Sylvia
R. Ramas-Uypitching
6.
Gina
N. Ramas-Uypitching
SO
ORDERED.
(Sgd.)
GEORGE S. PATRIARCA
Presiding Judge
NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to
execute the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 23, 1996, in the
manner and form prescribed by law and that you make your return of service to
this Court with your proceedings indorsed thereon, within sixty (60) days after
its receipt by you.
WITNESS THE
HONORABLE GEORGE S. PATRIARCA, Presiding Judge of this Court, this 7th
day of January, 2003 in the City of Bacolod, Philippines.
(Sgd.) Atty. DIALINDA C. DOMINGUEZ Clerk of Court V
[9] Villareal v. Rarama, 317 Phil. 589, 598 (1995).
[10] Booc
v. Bantuas, 406 Phil. 740, 744 (2001).
[11] Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. Santiago, 489 Phil. 1, 10 (2005).
[12] A.M. No. P-88-255, March 3, 1992,
206 SCRA 678.
[13] Supra
note 10.
[14] A.M. No. P-05-2088, November 11,
2005, 474 SCRA 464, 471.
[15] A.M.
No. P-07-2398 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1621-P), February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA
1. Therein complainant, also therein plaintiff and
judgment obligee in Civil Case No. 4657, entitled Spouses Ireneo and Mariles Geronca v. Powroll Construction Co., et al.,
filed an administrative complaint against therein respondent (also herein
respondent) for wrongful implementation of the writ of execution.
[16] Narag
v. Manio, A.M. No. P-08-2579, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 206, 213; OCA v. Cunting, A.M. No. P-04-1917
(Formerly A.M. No. 04-10-297-MTCC), December 10, 2007, 539 SCRA 494, 511; Sibulo v. San Jose, supra note 14.
[17] Narag
v. Manio, supra. The Court imposed a
fine of P20,000.00 on therein court interpreter for dishonesty and misconduct
in soliciting money from therein complainant and for conduct unbecoming a court
employee in recommending a private attorney to a prospective litigant and,
after receipt of money, failed to fulfil her promise to cause the preparation
of the petition.
[18] OCA
v. Cunting, supra note 12. Therein Clerk of Court was fined P40,000.00
for gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct due to failure to
return the missing court funds despite repeated demands.
[19] SEC. 9 -- x x x
x
(b) Satisfaction
by levy. - If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation
in cash, certified bank check or other mode of payment acceptable to the
judgment oblige, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment
obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be disposed of for value
and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the latter the option to
immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon,
sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If
the judgment obligor does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy
on the personal properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the
personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment.
The
sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal or real property
of the judgment obligor which has been levied upon.
When
there is more property of the judgment obligor than is sufficient to satisfy
the judgment and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the personal or real
property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.
Real
property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other personal property, or any
interest in either real or personal property, may be levied upon in like manner
and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.
[20] Civil Service Resolution No. 991936 dated August 31, 1999, effective September 27, 1999.
[21] See
note 15.