[A.M.
No. 01-4-237-RTC. September 17, 2002]
RE: PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY MR. DIOKNO
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
A.M. No. 01-4-237-RTC (Re:
Proposals Submitted by Mr. Elmer Diokno, President of the Manila RTC Sheriffs
Association.)
This pertains to the letter dated January 12, 2O01 by Mr. Either Diokno,
President of the Manila RTC Sheriff’s Association, submitting several proposals
aimed at enhancing and maintaining the efficiency of sheriffs. After referral
thereof to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, Deputy Court
Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño submitted on March 31, 2001, her report and
recommendations.
Mr. Diokno’s letter contained a query, namely, whether the security of
the court is part of the sheriff’s duties where there is no bailiff assigned to
provide security during trial. Providing security to the court is not one of
the official duties of the sheriff. Pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court and administrative circulars and issuances
readily show that, except as otherwise specially provided, the sheriff is
confined to serving and/or executing in person, or by deputy, writs, orders and
other processes of the Court.[1]
There is no need to designate bailiffs in every court since trial proceedings
are, as a general rule, peaceful except in those instances where sensational
cases are involved. In such situations, the trial court can always seek
assistance from security personnel contracted by this Court who are tasked to
secure offices and courts housed in the Halls of Justice, the local police
force or even members of the armed forces when the need arises.
Mr. Diokno submits nine proposals, which we shall discuss sequentially:
In the first proposal, it is suggested that sheriffs and process servers
must be allowed to reimburse actual traveling expenses incurred in the service
of court processes after office hours, on weekends and holidays, which should
be considered “on official time” so that they will be covered by government
insurance.
The request must be denied pending further study on the feasibility
thereof vis-à-vis existing rules, circulars and issuances. Under Section
340, Chapter 1, Title 6, Book III of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual,
government officials and employees on official travel are allowed reimbursement
of actual fare at the prevailing rates of transportation from the permanent
station of the employee or official concerned to his destination and back. This
presupposes that the travel is official or authorized. Before sheriffs and
process servers may be entitled to reimbursement, guidelines must, however, be
first laid down to implement this. Furthermore, focus must be made on those
cases such as petitions for habeas corpus, election cases, special civil
actions and cases involving tourists which by their nature demand urgency.
The second proposal, on the implementation of the circular
providing for cash advances to be given to judges for purpose of providing
transportation allowances to sheriffs and process servers, must likewise be
denied.
The circular referred to in the letter is Administrative Order No. 6
dated June 30, 1975. This empowers the Executive Judge to personally authorize
the disbursements for maintenance and repair of court equipment and for travel
expenses for sheriffs and process servers out of funds in the custody of the
clerk of court as such advances from this Court. The amount should not exceed
One thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) for each branch per quarter. This
provision was implemented in the past but was subsequently stopped due to
problems attendant to the liquidation of the cash advances.
The clerks of court who had custody of the funds found it difficult to
comply with Section 179, Article 2, Title 4, Book III of the Government
Accounting and Auditing Manual. Section 179 prescribes that the cash advance
for petty operating expenses/field operating expenses shall be liquidated
within twenty (20) days after the end of each year, subject to replenishments
during the year. Failure to liquidate within the prescribed period shall be a
valid cause for withholding the salary of the accountable officer or the filing
of appropriate administrative action against him.
Experience has demonstrated that the accountable officer who held the
cash advances were not able to seasonably liquidate the same or failed to
provide the supporting documentation for the expenditures. Some could not be
cleared of their accountability due to deficiencies in liquidation. In the
absence of any effective and expeditious mode of liquidating the cash advances,
the Court is not inclined to suggest the resumption of the implementation of
the provisions of Paragraph (5), Section IV, of Administrative Order No. 6
dated June 30, 1975.
The third proposal, which suggests that summons fees collected in the
amount of Fifty pesos (P50.00) per defendant upon the filing of a civil action
must be given to sheriffs and process servers as part of the incentives for
efficient sheriffs and process servers, must also be denied.
The proposal would entail a tedious process of amendment, publication
and implementation of relevant provisions of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on
legal fees. The amounts collected as
summons fees are allocated between the General Fund and Judiciary Development
Fund in accordance with existing administrative issuances. Furthermore, to
grant the request for change in the beneficiary of the summons fees from the
General Fund/Judiciary Development Fund to the sheriffs and process servers
would be to open the floodgates for other employees of the lower courts to
follow with similar requests.
The fourth proposal, which urges the designation of a member coming from
the lower court officials or rank-and-file employees to the special committee
task force in this Court that formulates policies affecting the lower courts,
would be superfluous and, hence, should be denied.
The Committee tasked with formulating, considering and studying concerns
affecting the lower courts always includes a representative from the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA). Should there be need for the views or inputs of
specific occupational groups, the officers of their respective associations can
be invited as resource persons.
The fifth proposal, requesting that newly appointed sheriffs should be
permitted to seek the assistance of one (1) Sheriff to help and guide them in
the implementation of court writs, is well-taken. A newly-appointed sheriff needs the guidance and steadying
influence of a more experienced sheriff in going about the performance of his
tasks especially during the period in which he familiarizes himself with his
duties and responsibilities. To aid the process it would be useful for the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in coordination with the Philippine
Judicial Academy (PhilJA) to formulate and develop immersion programs for
sheriffs to facilitate the integration of those newly appointed into the
judicial system.
The sixth proposal seeking permission for sheriffs to file cases of “assault”
or “obstruction of justice” against persons who subject them to verbal or
physical assault during the performance of their official duties is likewise a
superfluity and, thus, must be denied.
There are adequate penal sanctions provided by law for persons who
subject sheriffs to the verbal or physical assaults pointed out. Articles 151 and 152 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, for instance provide that:
ART. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or the agents of such person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions
of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in
authority or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of
official duties.
ART. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons
in authority. - In applying the provisions of the preceding and other
articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as
an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board or
commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barangay captain and a
barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
Any person
who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent
authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection
and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio
policeman and barangay leader, and any person who tomes to the aid of persons
in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges or universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority.
Sheriffs and process servers may also file a case for obstruction of
justice under Section 1, paragraph (e) of P.D. No. 1829 which penalizes any
person who delays the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service
of processes, court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals’ offices,
Tanodbayan, or in other courts.
The seventh proposal requesting for guidelines in apprehending or
prosecuting bribe givers in cases of bribery attempts on court personnel is
unnecessary and, hence, denied. A close
coordination with the police, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and other law
enforcement agencies who have standard operating procedures for the arrest of
offenders would suffice.
The eighth proposal refers to the provision of a regular seminar for all
employees of the lower courts. This is
already provided by the Philippine Judicial Academy. Hence, the proposal should
be denied.
Lastly, the ninth proposal calling for the designation of an additional
member from the lower courts to the Selection and Promotions Board of the OCA
for lower courts is likewise denied.
The proposal to add nine (9) more members to represent Luzon, Visayas
and Mindanao in the Selection and Promotion Board is not only impractical but
is also inconsistent with Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of
1989. This Circular allows only two (2)
representatives from the rank and file, one from the first level and the other
from the second level, to be members of the Board.
It should be noted in this regard that under Administrative Order No.
64-93,[2]
the Board is composed of the Court Administrator as Chairman, Deputy Court
Administrators as Vice-Chairmen, a representative from the Office of the Chief
Justice, the Chief of Administrative Services or his/her representative and a
representative of the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE).
ACCORDINGLY, the
proposal/request of the Manila RTC Sheriff’s Association is hereby --
1.] GRANTED as regards the following:
a.] Newly appointed Sheriffs may request the
assistance of one (1) experienced Sheriff to help and guide them in the
performance of their duties and responsibilities particularly the enforcement
and implementation of the various court writs;
2.] DENIED as to the following:
a.] The reimbursement of actual traveling
expenses incurred in the service of
court processes after office hours, on weekends and holidays, pending the
formulation of the proper guidelines for the implementation thereof;
b.] The implementation of Administrative
Order No. 6, dated June 30, 1975, Section IV, paragraph 5 purpose of providing
transportation allowances to sheriffs and Process Servers pending the
formulation of a more expeditious mode of liquidating cash advances;
c.] The allocation of P50.00 per defendant
upon the filing of a civil action, of Summons fees as part of the incentives of
Sheriffs and Process Servers;
d.] The designation of a lower court
official and a rank-and-file employee to be a member of the special committee
or task force in the Court that formulates policies affecting the lower courts;
e.] The filing of cases for assault and
obstruction of justice where Sheriffs are subjected to verbal and physical
assault in the course of the performance of their official duties;
f.] The setting of guidelines in
apprehending and prosecuting bribe-givers;
g.] The provision of a regular seminar for
all employees of the lower courts; and
h.] The designation of additional members to
the Selection and Promotion Board for
lower courts of the Office of the Court Administrator.
The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to prepare the
pertinent guidelines for the assistance of newly appointed sheriffs in the
performance of their duties and responsibilities.
Very truly yours,
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Acting Asst. Clerk of Court