SECOND DIVISION
|
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by Atty. Benilda A. Tejada, Chief Legal Counsel, Complainant, - versus - CLERK OF COURT VII ATTY.
JEOFFREY S. JOAQUINO, Office of the Clerk of
Court, and SHERIFF IV CONSTANCIO V. ALIMURUNG, Branch 18, both of the Regional Trial Court, Respondents. |
A.M.
No. P-10-2835
(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2901-P) Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: June 8, 2011 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
the Court is an earnest plea[1] of
respondent Jeoffrey S. Joaquino (Joaquino), Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 18,
Development
Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed a verified letter- complaint before the Office
of the Court Administrator, charging Clerk of Court Joaquino with grave
misconduct, abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law; and Sheriff IV
Constancio V. Alimurung (Alimurung) with grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service relative to Civil Case No.
CEB-29383, entitled Spouses Florentino
J. Palacio and Ellen Palacio, Palacio Shipping, Inc., and FJP Lines, Inc. v.
Development Bank of the Philippines, for damages, judicial determination
of amount of obligation, nullity/annulment/reformation of instruments and
agreements, bloated principal obligation, excessive interest rates and penalties,
judicial accounting and application of payment, specific performance,
extinguishment of obligations, and attorneys fees. A brief background of Civil
Case No. CEB-29383 is quoted herein, viz.:
The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
is the defendant in Civil Case No. CEB-29383, filed with the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 21,
The plaintiff moved for Partial Summary
Judgment on the issue of insurance proceeds, but defendant opposed the
same. On 6 September 2006, the trial
court rendered a Partial Summary Judgment (Annex
C, Ibid); in favor of the plaintiff by directing defendant DBP to
immediately release to FJP Lines the GSIS insurance proceeds due to M/V Don
Martin Sr. 9. DBP asked for
reconsideration but the same was denied in an Order (Annex D, Ibid), dated 8 December 2006. Not persuaded, DBP filed a Notice of Appeal (Annex E, Ibid).
On 19 December 2006, the plaintiff moved for
execution pending appeal of the partial judgment. This was granted by the trial court in the Order
of 29 January 2007 (Annex F, Ibid). A motion for reconsideration was filed by DBP
but the same was denied in the Order of 12 March 2007.
Respondent Joaquino issued, on 21 March 2007,
a Writ of Execution (Annex G, Ibid)
to enforce the partial judgment. To
avoid execution, DBP filed an Urgent Motion to Stay Discretionary Execution
with Alternative Motion for the Approval of Supersedeas Bond.
The trial court denied the motion in an Order, dated 26 March 2007. Aggrieved, DBP filed a Petition for Certiorari
(docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 02604) before the Court of Appeals, Cebu City
Station, to assail the Orders, dated 29 January and 12 March 2007.
In the meantime, Sheriff IV Romeo C.
Asombrado of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21,
In a Decision (Annex I, Ibid), dated 20 July 2007, in CA-G.R. SP No. 02604, the
Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Orders, dated 29 January and 12
March 2007, as well as the writs and processes subsequently issued for the
implementation of the said Orders. FJP
Lines seasonably filed a motion of reconsideration, but the same was denied.
On 13 November 2007, FJP Lines moved to
dismiss DBPs appeal, which motion was granted in an Order, dated 6 March 2008
(Annex J, Ibid). Unconvinced, DBP sought the reconsideration (Annex K, Ibid) of the said Order.
On 17 March 2008, respondent Joaquino issued
another Writ of Execution to implement the Partial Judgment of 6 September
2006. The same was served to defendant
DBP by respondent Alimurung (Annex L,
Ibid).
In an Order (Annex N, Ibid), dated 4 April 2008, Judge Menchavez inhibited
himself from handling Civil Case No. CEB-29383 and ordered that the pending
incident, relative to the issuance and implementation of the writ of execution,
be addressed to the court where the case will be re-raffled. On the same day, pursuant to the 17 March
2008 Writ of Execution, respondent Alimurung served a copy of the Notice of
Sheriffs Sale at Public Auction (Annex
O, Ibid) to DBPs Regional Marketing Center in Central Visayas, informing
it that its proprietary shares in Cebu Country Club would be sold at public
auction on 8 April 2008. In a Letter (Annex P, Ibid), dated 8 April 2008, DBP
manifested to respondent Alimurung its objection to the auction sale,
considering that the partial judgment, dated 6 September 2006, sought to be
implemented, was not yet final and executory.
However, despite such notice, Sheriff Alimurung proceeded with the
scheduled auction sale (Annex Q, Ibid).
DBP filed a Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order, dated 6 March 2008 (which denied its Notice of
Appeal) with an Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or
Preliminary Injunction to enjoin respondent Alimurung from proceeding with the
enforcement of the Writ of Execution, dated 17 March 2008. During the hearing on the TRO, respondent
Alimurung boldly manifested in open court that he [was] bent on further
implementing the Writ of Execution dated March 17, 2008 against DBP.
On 16 April 2008, respondent Alimurung again
issued a Notice of Sheriffs
To prevent further damage, DBP, on 18 April
2008, filed before the Court of Appeals, Cebu City Station, a Petition for
Injunction with Prayer for TRO/Injunction against Spouses Palacio, LJP Lines,
and respondent Joaquino and Alimurung (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 03411).[3]
On
August 11, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution,[4]
the fallo of which reads:
The Court RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator
in the attached Report dated 27 January 2010 (Annex A). Accordingly, the Court further resolves to:
1. RE-DOCKET the instant administrative
complaint as a regular administrative matter;
2. FIND respondent Jeoffrey S. Joaquino,
Clerk of Court VII, OCC, RTC, Cebu City, GUILTY
of gross ignorance of the Rules and dereliction of duty and accordingly
impose on him the penalty of SUSPENSION
for six (6) months without pay, with WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall merit his
dismissal from the service; and
3. DISMISS
the complaint against respondent Constancio V. Alimurung, Sheriff IV, RTC,
Br. 18,
SO
ORDERED.[5]
Respondent Joaquino filed a motion
for reconsideration; while DBP filed a partial motion for reconsideration,
assailing the dismissal of the complaint against Sheriff Alimurung. On February
7, 2011, the Court issued a Resolution[6]
denying both motions with finality for lack of substantial merit.
On
April 13, 2011, respondent Joaquino filed a second motion for reconsideration,
raising the following grounds in support of his motion: (1) that he issued the
questioned March 17, 2008 writ of execution based on his honest reliance on and
obedience to the September 6, 2006 Order of the RTC, granting the partial
summary judgment, and the March 6, 2008 Order of the RTC, declaring the partial
summary judgment final and executory, and directing the issuance of a writ of
execution; (2) that the penalty of six (6) months without pay is too harsh and
severe for the violation charged against him, based on the penalty imposed in Separa v. Atty. Maceda.[7]
Out
of compassion, we take a second look at the penalty imposed on Clerk of Court
Joaquino. A review of the penalty imposed on court employees who were
administrably charged is justified, viz.:
In
Separa, an
administrative complaint was filed against respondents Branch Clerk of Court
and Sheriffs for usurpation of authority, falsification, and gross ignorance of
the law for declaring the Gualbertos as the lawful owner of Lot 1991-A, when
the judgment sought to be enforced was the decision in another trial court
which merely dismissed the case.[8] The amended writ of execution
issued by the Branch Clerk of Court directed the implementation of a decision
which had already been set aside by the appellate court and subsequently
dismissed by the RTC. Hence, the amended writ was void for two reasons: (1) the
amended writ went beyond the order granting execution; and (2) respondent
Branch Clerk of Court was not clothed with authority to issue the amended writ.[9] The
Supreme Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) on
respondent Branch Clerk of Court for having issued the amended writ, which
directed the execution of the judgment of another court.[10]
In Leyrit v. Solas,[11]
the Branch Clerk of Court was held liable for simple misconduct. The Court
imposed a fine equivalent to his three (3) months salary to be deducted from
his retirement benefits.
In
Aquino-Simbulan v. Bartolome,[12]
the presiding judge and the clerk of court (retired) were found guilty of gross
negligence. Both were meted a fine in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00),
to be deducted from their retirement benefits.
In
Heirs of Spouses Jose and Concepcion
Olorga v. Beldia, Jr.,[13]
respondent judge was found liable for simple misconduct for his violation of
Canons 1, 11, and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was meted a
fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).
In
Andres v. Majaducon, respondent judge
was held liable for abuse of authority and was fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
In
Pastor C. Pinlac v. Oscar T. Llamas, Cash Clerk II, Regional Trial Court, Office
of the Clerk of Court, San Carlos City, Pangasinan,[14] then
Cash Clerk II of the RTC was found guilty of grave misconduct and was
accordingly meted a fine of P20,000.00.
Considering the circumstances
attendant to this case, and in the spirit of compassion, we resolve to lower the
penalty imposed on respondent Joaquino based on the recent pronouncements of
the Court. A penalty of a fine of TEN
THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) is reasonable, considering the fact that he simply
issued the writ of execution based on the March 6, 2008 Order[15]
of the RTC, which reads:
WHEREFORE,
defendants [DBPs] notice of appeal filed on December 18, 2006 is dismissed.
The assailed Partial Summary Judgment dated September 6, 2006 having become
final and executory, let a writ of execution issue against the defendant.
SO ORDERED.[16]
However,
respondent Joaquino is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar
offense in the future shall merit his dismissal from the service. Clerks of
court occupy a sensitive position in the judicial system, they are required to
safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings, to earn and preserve
respect therefor, to maintain loyalty thereto and to the judge as superior
officer, to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records, and to
uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. Clerks of
court play a key role in the complement of the court and, thus, cannot be
permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another.[17]
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the penalty imposed on respondent Jeoffrey S. Joaquino,
Clerk of Court VII, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, P10,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the
future shall merit his dismissal from the service.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, unpaged.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] 431 Phil. 1 (2002).
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] A.M. Nos. P-08-2567-68, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 668.
[12] A.M. No. MTJ-05-1588, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 259.
[13] A.M. No. RTJ-08-2137, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 191.
[14] A.M. No. P-10-2781, November 24, 2010.
[15] Rollo, unpaged.
[16]
[17] Separa v. Atty. Maceda, supra note 7, at 9.