Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
TERESITA GUERRERO-BOYLON, Complainant, - versus - ANICETO BOYLES, Sheriff
III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. P-09-2716
Present: CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN,*
ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ,*
SERENO, REYES, and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: October
11, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
In
a letter-complaint dated
The
complainant is the daughter of Asuncion T. Guerrero, the plaintiff in Civil
Case No. R-75. In behalf of her mother, the complainant moved to implement the
final and executory decision in Civil Case No. R-75 in July 2005. The court in
due course issued a writ and assigned the respondent to implement it. At the respondents
request, two (2) sheriffs from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9,
According
to the complainant, the scheduled demolition did not take place as the
respondent did not show up on time and could not be reached. In another planned
demolition scheduled for the last quarter of 2005, the respondent also failed
to show up. The respondent offered varied excuses[1] to
the complainant to justify his non-appearances and his failure to implement the
writ.
By
On
In his comment dated
The
respondent insisted that he and his team tried to serve the notices to vacate
sometime in January 2007. However, he could not immediately serve them as he
had other court processes to attend to. The respondent also explained that
service of the notices to vacate could not be made either because the gates of
the property were locked or because no one answered their calls. The last
attempt of the respondents team to serve the notices and writ was on
In
a Resolution dated November 18, 2009, the Court resolved to: (1) note the
letter-complaint of the complainant and the comment of the respondent; (2)
re-docket the letter-complaint as a regular administrative matter; and (3)
require the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the matter
for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed, within ten (10) days from
notice.
Only the respondent manifested his
intention to file additional pleadings and documents. In this regard, the
respondent filed his answer together with supporting documents.[4] He
additionally averred that he had filed a motion for clarification before the
issuing court to clarify the party against whom the writ should be implemented.
He also averred that he inhibited himself from continuing with the
implementation of the writ as he was convinced that the plaintiffs no longer
trusted him. After his inhibition, another sheriff continued to implement the
writ and succeeded in evicting defendant spouses Nicolas and Natalia Babao from
the property.
Thereafter, we referred the
administrative matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and
recommendation.[5]
The Findings and Recommendations of the OCA
In
its Report dated
It has been said that the sheriffs duty to execute a judgment is ministerial. A purely ministerial act is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act done. Otherwise stated, a sheriff need not look outside the plain meaning of the writ. In this case, it was respondent Sheriffs duty to use reasonable and necessary force to see that judgment debtors vacate the premises. Any exercise of discretion may be used only when a sheriff is faced with an ambiguous execution order, in which case prudence and reasonableness dictate that he seeks clarification from the judge.
The non-implementation of the writ for almost two years cannot be justified by the allegation that the property is not properly identified and that the persons are not parties to the civil case. To exercise compassion and discretion to the extent that the sheriff substitutes his own standard of justice which has been properly determined in contentious proceedings is to encroach upon the power of a judge, which amounts to grave abuse of authority. He should have acted promptly to clarify the court order.
The explanations offered by the respondent are hollow and undeserving of merit. Evidently, respondent was not only remiss in his implementation of the writ, but likewise derelict in his submission of the returns thereof.[7]
The
OCA recommended that the respondent be suspended without pay for one (1) month,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings of the OCA that
the respondent is administratively liable, but we differ on the
characterization of the offense and the recommended penalty.
The duties of the sheriff in
implementing writs of execution are explicitly laid down in the Rules of Court
(Rules). Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 10, Rule 39
of the Rules provide for the manner a writ for the delivery or restitution of
real property shall be enforced by the sheriff:
Section
10. Execution of judgments for specific act.
x x x x
(c) Delivery
or restitution of real property. The officer shall demand of the person against whom
the judgment for the delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and
all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the property within
three (3) working days, and restore possession thereof to the judgment obligee,
otherwise, the officer shall oust and such persons therefrom with the
assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and employing such
means as may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the
judgment obligee in possession of such property. Any costs, damages, rents or
profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the same manner as a
judgment for money.
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject
of execution. When the property subject of the execution contains improvements
constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the officer shall
not destroy, demolish or remove said improvements except upon special order of
the court, issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and
after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed
by the court.
After the implementation of the writ,
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules requires sheriffs to execute and make a return
on the writ of execution:
SEC. 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.
The above provisions enumerate the
following duties of a sheriff: first,
to give notice of the writ and demand that the judgment obligor and all persons
claiming under him vacate the property within three (3) days; second, to enforce the writ by
removing the judgment obligor and all persons claiming under the latter; third, to remove the latters
personal belongings in the property as well as destroy, demolish or remove the
improvements constructed thereon upon special court order; and fourth, to execute and make a
return on the writ within 30 days from receipt of the writ and every 30 days
thereafter until it is satisfied in full or until its effectivity expires.
Clearly, these provisions leave no
room for any exercise of discretion on the part of the sheriff on how to
perform his or her duties in implementing the writ. A sheriffs compliance with
the Rules is not merely directory but mandatory.[8] A
sheriff is expected to know the rules of procedure pertaining to his functions
as an officer of the court.[9]
In this case, we find that the
respondent was remiss in performing his mandated duties. In the first place, the respondent failed to
implement and enforce the writ within the prescribed period provided under the
Rules. As the records show, the respondent failed to serve the writ and the notices
to vacate to the occupants of the property within three (3) days. Moreover, the
respondent failed to evict the occupants of the subject property, and to remove
their personal belongings, and the structures and improvements they introduced.
Aside from these, the respondent failed to make periodic reports, thus
depriving the court of the opportunity to know and ensure the speedy execution
of its decision.[10]
We are not unmindful that the
respondent had been given several opportunities over a long period of time -
almost two (2) years - to comply with his duties in implementing the writ. The
records show that the respondent imputed the delay in executing the writ to his
hectic work schedule. We also note that his half-hearted attempts and refusal
to execute the writ were due to his misgivings and doubts on the soundness and
propriety of the writ. The records also show that the respondent only acted on
the writ when the complainant sought the intervention of Judge Necesario. Even then, the respondents insincere efforts
to comply with his duties were obvious; it particularly stood out when he
carelessly designated Tipgos to do his court duties for him. The extent of his indifference
and carelessness totally emerged after his inhibition when another sheriff
acted in his place and immediately served the writ on, and promptly evicted,
the occupants of the property.
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
mandates that court employees act properly and with due diligence in the performance
of their duties. The same Code also
demands that court employees implement the orders of the court within the
limits of their authority.[11]
In Teresa T. Gonzales LaO & Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Hatab,[12]
the Court emphasized the importance of sheriffs and the efficient
performance of their functions in the administration of justice, to wit:
[Sheriffs] are tasked to execute final judgments of courts. If not enforced, such decisions are empty victories of the prevailing parties. They must therefore comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writs promptly and expeditiously. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the courts writs and processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[13]
The respondent failed to observe
these standards. The lapse of time it took for the respondent to unsuccessfully
execute the writ demonstrates his utter lack of diligence in performing his
duties.
We have held time and again that the sheriff's
duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial.[14]
Once the writ is placed in his or her hands, a sheriff is obligated to execute
the order of the court strictly to the letter and with reasonable promptness,
taking heed of the prescribed period required by the Rules.[15] The
respondent is presumed to know all these and he cannot be excused from
compliance regardless of his personal views and busy schedule. Any kind of
doubt in the proper implementation of the writ would have been addressed if the
respondent seasonably asked for a clarification from the court. Regrettably, he
only made such request after a considerable time and after he had given the
complainant excuses that only delayed the implementation of the writ.
In the recent case of Proserpina V. Anico v. Emerson B. Pilipia,
etc.,[16]
we held that the failure of the sheriff to carry out what is a purely
ministerial duty, to follow well-established rules in the implementation of
court orders and writs, to promptly undertake the execution of judgments, and
to accomplish the required periodic reports, constitute gross neglect and gross
inefficiency in the performance of official duties.
Gross neglect of duty refers to
negligence that is characterized by glaring want of care; by acting or omitting
to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally; or by acting with a conscious indifference to
consequences with respect to other persons who may be affected.[17]
It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never
fail to take on their own property.[18]
In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of
duty is flagrant and palpable.[19] Gross
inefficiency is closely related to gross neglect as both involve specific acts
of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or
to the latters business.[20]
We find that the circumstances in Anico have been duly established in the
present case to make the respondent liable for gross neglect of duty and gross
inefficiency. Under the circumstances, the records show several infractions
committed by the respondent in the performance of his official duties, namely:
(1) the failure to implement the writ; (2) the failure to make periodic
reports; (3) the failure to execute the writ within the prescribed period; and
(4) the utter disregard of the rules on execution and the well-established
jurisprudence relating to the ministerial duty of sheriffs in the execution and
implementation of a writ.
Under the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Civil Service Rules), gross neglect of
duty and gross inefficiency are classified as grave offenses. Gross neglect of
duty is punishable with dismissal from the service for the first offense, while
gross inefficiency is punishable with suspension for six (6) months and one (1)
day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second
offense.[21] The
Civil Service Rules also provides that if the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed
should be the penalty corresponding to
the most serious charge or count while the other proven charges shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.[22] Thus, for the infractions committed, the respondent is
meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with the accessory penalties of
forfeiture of all
his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment
in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government- owned
or controlled corporations.
As a final note, court personnel
should be constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or
negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided.[23] Those who work in the Judiciary must adhere
to high ethical standards to preserve the courts good name and standing.[24] They should be examples of responsibility,
competence and efficiency, and they must discharge their duties with due care
and utmost diligence, since they are officers of the Court and agents of the
law.[25] Indeed, any conduct, act or omission violative
of the norms of public accountability and that may diminish the faith of the
people in the Judiciary should not be allowed.[26]
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, we find ANICETO BOYLES,
Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and
gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties, and hereby DISMISS him from the service. This
penalty shall carry with it the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all his
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment
in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned
or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice
|
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
(On Leave) LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
(On Leave)
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
|
(On Leave) JOSE Associate Justice
|
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES ESTELA
M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
* On official leave.
** On Leave.
[1] The respondent reasoned that he was on another assignment; leave of absence; demolition crew and/or police or security force are scared; or coming up with a technicality or another to render the demolition unimplementable[.] Rollo, p. 8.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Through Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez.
[7] Rollo, pp. 77-78.
[8] Office of the Court
Administrator v. Efren E. Tolosa, etc.,
A.M. No. P-09-2715,
[9] Ibid.
[10] Proserpina
V. Anico v. Emerson B. Pilipia, etc.,
A.M. No. P-11-2896,
[11] Code
of
[12] 386 Phil. 88 (2000), cited in Gonzales v. Cerenio, A.M. No. P-07-2396,
[13] Teresa T. Gonzales LaO & Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Hatab, supra, at 92-93.
[14] Proserpina V. Anico v. Emerson B. Pilipia, etc., supra note 10.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Brucal
v. Desierto, G.R. No. 152188,
[18]
[19] Ibid.
[20]
[21] Civil Service Rules, Rule IV, Section 52(A)(2) and (16).
[22]
[23] Proserpina V. Anico v. Emerson B. Pilipia, etc., supra note 10.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.