Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1979 > February 1979 Decisions > A.M. No. P-1769 February 28, 1979 - CRESENCIO GARCIA v. ALBERTO ASILO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-1769. February 28, 1979.]

CRESENCIO GARCIA, Complainant, v. ALBERTO ASILO, Deputy Sheriff, Court of First Instance, Malolos, Bulacan, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent deputy sheriff was charged with negligence in the service of summons. Complainant alleged that he paid respondent for the service of summons the sum of P30.00, but respondent two official receipts covering only the amount of P11.90, and despite complainant’s "follow-ups", respondent had failed to serve the summons up to the time the administrative complaint was filed. Respondent tried to explain the delay but did not deny the allegation that he demanded and was given by complainant the sum of P18.10, the difference between P30.00 and P11.90 for which no receipt was issued.

No formal investigation was conducted because the facts of record provide sufficient basis for determining respondent’s liability.

The Supreme Court held that respondent is guilty of an illegal exaction, and the fact that it took him some three months to serve the summons, his preferred excuse for the delay cannot warrant complete exoneration. Respondent was ordered to refund to complainant the P18.10 and was suspended for three months without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealth with more severely. A more severe penalty could have been meted out were it not for the fact that this is the first administrative charge against complainant during his 22 years in the service.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS; INVESTIGATION; FORMAL INVESTIGATION UNNECESSARY WHERE FACTS OF RECORDS SUFFICIENT. — Where the facts of record are sufficient to provide a basis for determining whether or not the respondent is to be held administratively liable, a formal investigation is no longer necessary.

2. ID.; MISCONDUCT; NON-ISSUANCE OF RECEIPT IS ILLEGAL EXACTION. — The respondent did not deny the allegation that he demanded and was given by the complainant the sum of P18.10 for which no receipt was issued. There is absolutely no justification for this act of the respondent considering that there are only two defendants to be served with summons. The respondent is guilty of an illegal exaction. The amount of P11.90 for which the respondent had issued two official receipts was more than enough to pay for the sheriff’s fees.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY FOR MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. — For having demanded the amount of P18.10 for which he did not issue a receipt, the respondent should be suspended for three (3) months without pay. A more severe penalty would have been imposed were it not for the fact that his personal record shows that for (22) years during the period that he occupied the position, he was never administratively held to account for any official misconduct.


R E S O L U T I O N


FERNANDEZ, J.:


In a letter-complaint subscribed and sworn to on October 21, 1977 addressed to the Secretary of Justice, Cresencio Garcia charged Alberto Asilo, Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance at Malolos, Bulacan, with negligence in the service of summons upon the defendants in two civil cases 1 instituted in the Court of First Instance at Manila.

The complainant, Cresencio Garcia, alleged that on August 18, 1977 he filed with the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Malolos, Bulacan the summonses and corresponding copies of the complaints to be served upon the defendants Aurelio Sanchez and Ceferino Perez whose respective given addresses were Borol 1st, Balagtas, Bulacan and Bonga Mayor, Bustos, Bulacan; that he paid the respondent for the service of the summons the total amount of Thirty Pesos (P30.00) but the respondent issued two official receipts 2 covering only the amount of Eleven Pesos and Ninety Centavos (P11.90); and that the respondent had failed to serve the summonses "up to October 18, 1977" despite complainant’s "follow-ups" in respondent’s office.chanrobles law library

In his comment on the complaint, the respondent explained that he had earnestly tried to serve the summonses upon the defendants Perez and Sanchez as early as August 23 and 26, 1977 respectively, but both could not be found at their given addresses; that eventually, on November 21, 1977 the summons for Perez was left by respondent with said defendant’s wife, in spite of her refusal to receive it, at their residence at Bonga, Bustos, Bulacan which respondent noted to be a place different from that stated in the summons; that the next day, November 22, 1977, respondent personally served the summons on Sanchez when he chanced upon the latter while riding a tricycle in Balagtas, Bulacan; and that the respondent made his returns of the summonses to the court of origin by way of letter, reports dated November 29, 1977. 3

There is no need to conduct a formal investigation of this charge, the facts d record being sufficient to provide a basis for determining whether or not the respondent is to be held administratively liable. 4 The fact is that it took respondent some three months to finally serve the summonses upon the defendants. The respondent’s excuse for his delay cannot warrant a complete exoneration.

The respondent did not deny the allegation that he demanded and was given by the complainant the sum of P18.10 for which no receipt was issued. There is absolutely no justification for this act of the respondent considering that there are only two defendants to be served with summons. The respondent is guilty of an illegal exaction. The amount of P11.90 for which the respondent had issued two official receipts was more than enough to pay for the sheriff’s fees. For having demanded the amount of P18.10 for which he did not issue a receipt, the respondent should be suspended for three (3) months without pay. A more severe penalty would have been imposed were it not for the fact that his personal record 5 shows that the respondent has been a deputy sheriff since November 15, 1956. During the twenty-two (22) years that he occupied the position, he was never administratively held to account for any official misconduct.cralawnad

WHEREFORE, the respondent deputy sheriff is hereby suspended for a period of three (3) months without pay effective from his receipt of this resolution, and he is ordered to refund to the complainant the P18.10 and is warned that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.

The respondent is also admonished to be prompt in attending to his duties in the future, and is warned that repetition of this negligence will be dealt with more drastically.

Let this resolution be made of record in the respondent’s personal record in this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Civil Cases Nos. 110217 and 110218, entitled "Remedios Garcia, Et. Al. v. Aurelio Sanchez and Ceferino Perez."

2. The complaint mentioned Official Receipts Nos. 6154005 and 6154006 copies of which were alleged to have been attached to his letter-complaint, but these are missing.

3. Copies of the returns were attached to respondent’s Comment as Annexes "A" and "B", pp. 9, and 10 of Rollo.

4. In consonance with the precedent in Aquino v. Aficial, Adm. Matter No. P-1065, Jan. 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 222, 226.

5. The 201 file of Respondent.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1979 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 801-CFI February 2, 1979 - JORGE P. ROYECA v. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS

  • G.R. No. L-32792 February 2, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO BASTASA

  • G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979 - LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN v. ROMEO F. EDU

  • G.R. No. L-42608 February 6, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO TAMPUS

  • G.R. No. L-46942 February 6, 1979 - ROMULA MABALE v. SIMPLICIO APALISOK

  • G.R. Nos. L-49705-09 February 8, 1979 - TOMATIC ARATUC v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19937 February 19, 1979 - ASOCIACION DE AGRICULTORES DE TALISAY-SILAY, INC. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-41430 February 19, 1979 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. MATILDE LIM

  • G.R. No. L-49818 February 20, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS M. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-25601 February 21, 1979 - LUISA V. VDA. DE GUISON v. CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY

  • G.R. No. L-41684 February 21, 1979 - ANTONIO CRUZ v. ONOFRE VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26096 February 27, 1979 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. SILVERETRA ABABA

  • G.R. No. L-37737 February 27, 1979 - MAXIMO NOCNOC v. ISIDORO A. VERA

  • G.R. No. L-38837 February 27, 1979 - JOSE S. DINEROS v. MARCIANO C. ROQUE

  • G.R. No. L-44063 February 27, 1979 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO C. CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-46582 February 27, 1979 - POGONG SOLIWEG v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-48315 February 27, 1979 - DOMINADOR B. BORJE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL

  • A.C. No. 1582 February 28, 1979 - ENEDENA AGAWA VDA. DE ORIBIANA v. FIDENCIO H. GERIO

  • A.M. No. P-1641 February 28, 1979 - RODOLFO PAA v. VALENTIN C. REMIGIO

  • A.M. No. P-1687 February 28, 1979 - ANGEL MANALILI v. DANILO VIESCA

  • A.M. No. P-1769 February 28, 1979 - CRESENCIO GARCIA v. ALBERTO ASILO

  • G.R. No. L-24392 February 28, 1979 - ANACLETO ONDAP v. BONIFACIO ABUGAA

  • G.R. No. L-25316 February 28, 1979 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-27343 February 28, 1979 - MANUEL G. SINGSONG v. ISABELA SAWMILL

  • G.R. Nos. L-27856-57 February 28, 1979 - RUSTICO PASCUAL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-29857 February 28, 1979 - LEGASPI OIL COMPANY, INC. v. DOROTEO L. SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-31481 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SARIP

  • G.R. No. L-33063 February 28, 1979 - CATALINO CATINDIG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. L-39367-69 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO A. CONCHADA

  • G.R. No. L-41107 February 28, 1979 - AMANDA L. VDA. DE DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-41819 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WINSTON P. MANLAPAZ

  • G.R. No. L-42455 February 28, 1979 - ERNESTO CERCADO v. DE DIOS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-42774 February 28, 1979 - MANILA TIMES PUBLISHING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43006 February 28, 1979 - BIBIANA CAOILI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-43555 February 28, 1979 - METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43748 February 28, 1979 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. E. RAZON, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-43854 February 28, 1979 - GLICERIA LASARTE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44353 February 28, 1979 - MARTHA FERANIL v. GUMERSINDO ARCILLA

  • G.R. No. L-44884 February 28, 1979 - BENJAMIN JARANILLA, JR. v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-45270 February 28, 1979 - LUIS T. PEGGY v. LAURO L. TAPUCAR

  • G.R. No. L-45633 February 28, 1979 - ELIZABETH PAPILOTA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48219 February 28, 1978

    MANUEL J. C. REYES v. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-49375 February 28, 1979 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. FILEMON H. MENDOZA