Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
|
Re: Complaint filed by
(Ret.) MCTC Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia against 18th Division Clerk of
Court Atty. May faith l. trumata-rebotiaco, Court of Appeals, Cebu City. |
A.M. CA-12-25-P [Formerly A.M.
OCA IPI No. 11-183-CA-P] Present: CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO,* ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA, SERENO, REYES, and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: March 20, 2012 |
|
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
r e s o l u t i o n
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is an administrative
complaint filed by Retired Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia (Ret. Judge Garcia) of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental, against respondent
Atty. May Faith L. Trumata-Rebotiaco (Rebotiaco), Court of Appeals (CA) 18th
Division Clerk of Court. The core issue at bench is whether respondent should be
dismissed from service for allegedly issuing an irregular Writ of Execution.
Facts
The case stemmed from the Petition
for Mandamus filed by Ret. Judge Garcia with the CA against the Government
Service and Insurance System (GSIS), Winston F. Garcia, Jessie A. Mauricio, and
Mila E. Santarromana (collectively GSIS, et
al.). The Petition was to compel GSIS, et
al. to pay in full the face value of complainants life insurance policy.[1]
On 20 February 2007, the 19th Division
of the CA rendered a Decision, which stated the following in the dispositive
portion:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for mandamus is GRANTED.
Respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) is hereby DIRECTED
to pay petitioner Rodolfo B. Garcia the unpaid balance of his life insurance
proceeds in the sum of Thirty-six Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-three Pesos and
Eighty-one centavos (₱36,393.81). No
pronouncement as to costs.[2]
(Underlining supplied.)
The CA denied the
Motion for Reconsideration of GSIS, et
al. on 14 September 2007.[3] The Decision eventually became
final, which led complainant to allegedly file a Motion to Issue Writ of Execution
dated 22 November 2007.[4] He asserts that he filed three more
motions thereafter. On 29 May 2008, the CA promulgated a Resolution directing
the issuance of an Entry of Judgment of its 20 February 2007 Decision.[5]
Complainant posits[6]
that it was only when he filed his fourth Motion to Issue Writ of Execution
dated 11 July 2010 that the 18th Division of the CA promulgated its 2
August 2010 Resolution directing respondent in her capacity as the Division
Clerk of Court to issue a corresponding writ of execution in order to enforce
and carry out the pronouncements in the 20 February 2007 CA Decision.[7]
Accordingly, she issued the writ, which quoted verbatim the dispositive portion
of the 20 February 2007 CA Decision directing only the GSIS to pay the remaining
balance of complainants life insurance proceeds. Thus, Rebotiaco addressed the
writ only to GSIS.[8] On
24 August 2010, complainant filed yet another Motion to Issue Writ of
Execution.[9]
As the GSIS continued with
its failure to comply with the 20 February 2007 CA Decision,[10]
Ret. Judge Garcia lodged the present administrative complaint against CA 18th
Division Clerk of Court Rebotiaco on 7 June 2011. Complainant faults her for
the unsuccessful enforcement of the Writ of Execution, which was allegedly irregular.
According to complainant, it was defective, as it was addressed only to a
juridical person GSIS and not to the appropriate officers thereof, in
violation of Section 11, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court. Complainant also posits
that respondent failed to direct a sheriff to enforce the Writ of Execution. He
claims that these are, inter alia,
the reasons why the writ was not enforced.[11]
Thus, he seeks the dismissal of respondent from service because of her incompetence,
inefficiency, negligence, ignorance of the law, or abuse of authority, which
allegedly made her unfit for her position.[12]
On 22 August 2011, while the
present Complaint was pending before this Court, Ret. Judge Garcia filed a motion
for the issuance of another writ of execution or to amend the earlier Writ of Execution.[13]
On 13 September 2011, the CA 19th Division issued a Resolution,[14]
which noted the noncompliance of GSIS with the Writ of Execution and directed
the 19th Division Clerk of Court to issue an Alias Writ of Execution
against specific officers of the GSIS. The pertinent portion of the 13
September 2011 CA Resolution states the following:
1.
ISSUE, with dispatch, the corresponding ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION directing The
President and General Manager, The Chief, Claims and Loans Division, The
Manager, and/or Any Appropriate Officer of the Government Service Insurance
System, Pasay City, to enjoin and enforce the Decision dated February 20,
2007, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
x x x x
x x x x x
2.
DIRECT
the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City to:
(a)
Designate a special sheriff to enforce the ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION against the GOVERNMENT SERVICE and INSURANCE SYSTEM,
Head Office, Financial Center, Reclamation Area, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City;
(b)
Require the
special sheriff to make a Return of the Alias Writ of Execution immediately but
not later than ten (10) days from its implementation, enforcement and service;
and
(c)
Submit the
originals of the pertinent documents to this Court.[15]
(Underlining supplied.)
Accordingly, 19th
Division Clerk of Court, Atty. Joseph Stephen A. Ygnacio, issued an Alias Writ
of Execution on 13 September 2011 commanding the GSIS and its above-mentioned
officers to cause the execution of the 20 February 2007 CA Decision
conformably with the dispositive portion thereof and as ordered in the
Resolutions dated August 2, 2010 and September 13, 2011.[16]
Issue
The main issue presented before this Court is whether or
not the CA 18th Division Clerk of Court committed an administrative
offense when she (a) addressed the Writ of Execution solely to GSIS and (b) failed
to direct a sheriff to enforce the writ.
Discussion
Complainant argues that the Writ of Execution issued by Rebotiaco,
in her capacity as the CA 18th Division Clerk of Court, was
irregular for violating Section 11, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court. The
pertinent provision of the Rules of Court reads as follows:
SEC. 11. Execution of judgment. Except where
the judgment or final order or resolution, or a portion thereof, is ordered to
be immediately executory, the motion for its execution may only be filed in the
proper court after its entry.
In original actions in the Court of Appeals, its writ of
execution shall be accompanied
by a certified true copy of the entry of judgment or final resolution and addressed to any appropriate officer for
its enforcement.
In appealed cases, where the
motion for execution pending appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals at a time
that it is in possession of the original record or the record on appeal, the
resolution granting such motion shall be transmitted to the lower court from
which the case originated, together with a certified true copy of the judgment
or final order to be executed, with a directive for such court of origin to issue
the proper writ for its enforcement. (n) (Emphasis supplied.)
This aforecited provision must be read in conjunction with
Section 8, Rule 39, viz:
SEC. 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution. The writ of execution shall: (1) issue in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted the
motion; (2) state the name of the
court, the case number and title, the
dispositive part of the subject judgment or order; and (3) require the sheriff or other proper officer
to whom it is directed to enforce the writ according to its terms, in the
manner hereinafter provided: x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
It is a settled rule
that a writ of execution should strictly conform to every essential particular
of the promulgated judgment as indicated in the dispositive portion (fallo) thereof[17] since it is that portion of the
decision that actually constitutes the resolution of the court.[18] Consequently, even if there is a conflict between
the dispositive portion and the opinion of a court contained in the body of the
decision, it would be the dispositive portion that would be controlling, regardless
of what was stated in the opinion.[19] This principle is based on the theory that
the dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a
statement ordering nothing.[20]
A writ of execution would be rendered void if it is in excess of and beyond the
original judgment or award spelled out in the dispositive portion of the
decision.[21]
We do not find any
incompetence, inefficiency, negligence, ignorance of the law, or abuse of
authority on the part of respondent when she (a) addressed the Writ of
Execution solely to GSIS and (b) did not direct a sheriff to enforce the writ. She
merely issued the Writ of Execution according to the literal text of the
dispositive portion of the 20 February 2007 CA Decision. Since only the GSIS was
directed to pay the remaining balance of complainants life insurance proceeds,
respondent cannot be faulted for issuing the writ sans an order against GSIS officers.
Neither can we condemn the
Clerk of Court for her failure to direct a sheriff to enforce the writ. In a
letter-reply dated 30 September 2010, the CA, through Executive Justice Portia
Alio-Hormachuelos, explained:
The Writ was directed to the GSIS there being no
Sheriff designated in the Court of Appeals.
In case of non-compliance,
the general procedure observed is for this Court to issue the appropriate legal
process against GSIS, and exercise its power of contempt to ensure enforcement.
It is highly recommended
that you confer with the Legal Office of the GSIS Cebu City for the purpose of
coordinating with the main branch in GSIS-Manila for the release of the amount
awarded in your favor.
It is hoped that the
foregoing clarifies your concern.[22] (Emphasis
supplied.)
It was only upon
the issuance of a Verification Report finding that the GSIS had continued to
fail to comply with the writ that the CA promulgated the afore-quoted 13
September 2011 Resolution. The Resolution ordered the issuance of an Alias Writ
of Execution and directed the Executive Judge of the Pasay City RTC to
designate a special sheriff who would enforce the Alias Writ of Execution.[23]
As we reiterated in Viray v. Court of Appeals, the order of
execution by a court is the foundation of a writ of execution. No one but the
court can amend what was granted in an order of execution, and its clerk of court
has no other duty but to issue a writ in accordance with the dispositive
portion of the grant.[24] Accordingly, it is imperative that
before the Clerk of Court can amend a writ of execution, the order of execution
should first be amended.[25]
In this case, had respondent
exceeded the terms of the order as expressed in the dispositive portion of
the CA Decision the writ would have been held null and void.[26]
We emphasize that the issuance of a writ of execution is ministerial, as it is founded
on the judicial act of awarding or ordering an execution.[27]
Thus, to have expected respondent to include the GSIS officers in the writ and
to direct the appointment of a special sheriff who would enforce the writ would
have had the effect of the Clerk of Courts arrogation unto herself of the
power to exercise a judicial act in violation of the law.
Wherefore, the administrative
complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA |
|
|
Chief Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO |
ARTURO D. BRION |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(On leave) |
|
|
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO |
ROBERTO A. ABAD |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE |
|
|
Associate Justice |
|
*
On leave.
[1]
The 20 February 2007 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 82552 was penned by CA Associate Justice
Agustin S. Dizon and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and
Francisco P. Acosta.
[2] CA Decision of 20 February 2007 at 10 (Garcia v. Government Service Insurance System, CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 82552), rollo, p. 47.
[3] Writ of Execution at 1 (issued on 2 August 2010) (Garcia v. Government Service Insurance System, CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 82552, decided on 2 August 2010), rollo, p. 4.
[4] Complaint at 1 (filed on 7 June 2011), rollo, p. 1.
[5] Writ of Execution, supra note 3.
[6] Complaint, supra note 4.
[7] CA Resolution of 2 August 2010 at 2 (Garcia v. Government Service Insurance System, CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 82552), rollo, p. 6. The Resolution was penned by CA Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia A. Hormachuelos and Edwin D. Sorongon.
[8] Writ of Execution, supra note 3 at 2, rollo, p. 5.
[9] CA Resolution of 13 September 2011 at 2 (Garcia v. Government Service Insurance System, CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 82552), rollo, p. 58.
[10] Id.
[11] Complaint, supra note 4 at 2, rollo, p. 2.
[12] Id.
[13] CA Resolution of 13 September 2011, supra note 9.
[14] The 13 September 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 82552 was penned by CA Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. delos Santos and Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
[15] CA Resolution of 13 September 2011, supra note 9 at 2-3, rollo, pp. 58-59.
[16] Alias Writ of Execution at 3 (issued on 13 September 2011) (Garcia v. Government Service Insurance System, CA-G.R. SP No. 82552, decided on 13 September 2011), rollo, p. 63.
[17]
Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc.
v. National Labor Relations Commission, 320 Phil. 517 (1995); Banquerigo v. Court of Appeals, 529
Phil. 826 (2006).
[18]
Olac v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
84256, 12 September 1992, 213 SCRA 321; Willlard B. Riano, Civil Procedure A
Restatement for the Bar, 494 (2009) citing Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 8.
[19]
Olac v. Court of Appeals, supra; Pelejo v. Court of Appeals, 201 Phil.
873 (1982), citing Robles v. Timario,
107 Phil. 809 (1960).
[20]
Olac v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[21]
Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc.
v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 17.
[22] Letter of CA Executive Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos, Annex 2 of Respondents Comment, rollo, p. 57.
[23]
CA Resolution of 13 September 2011, supra note 9
at 2-3, rollo, pp. 59-60.
[24]
350 Phil. 107 (1998).
[25]
Id.
[26]
Foremost Farms Incorporated v. Department
of Labor and Employment, 321 Phil. 487 (1995).
[27]
Viray v. Court of Appeals, supra note
24.