ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 105746 December 2, 1996 - MUNICIPALITY OF JIMENEZ v. HON. VICENTE T. BAZ. JR, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 115686 December 2, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO V. MALABAGO

  • G.R. No. 116610 December 2, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 117217 December 2, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENER S. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 119005 December 2, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABAS RAQUEL, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 119722 December 2, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO V. GANAN., ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 105213 December 4, 1996 - ERLINDA DE LA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112409 December 4, 1996 - CHAD COMMODITIES TRADING v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 114266 December 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121158 December 5, 1996 - CHINA BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-91-567 & MTJ-91-588 December 6, 1996 - MODESTO T. UALAT v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1033 December 6, 1996 - MAMAMAYAN NG ZAPOTE v. ISAURO M. BALDERIAN

  • G.R. No. 94516 December 6, 1996 - LUCIO SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111857 December 6, 1996 - JAIME CALPO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114864 December 6, 1996 - NATIONAL CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 118770 December 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE GONDORA

  • G.R. No. 123991 December 6, 1996 - FELIX LADINO v. ALFONSO S. GARCIA, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 88043 December 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAREJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95049 December 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR ESCANDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110569 December 9, 1996 - DIOSDADO MALLARI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-4-41-MeTC December 10, 1996 - QUARTERLY REPORT OF [INHERITED] CASES OF JUDGE EVELYN CORPUS-CABOCHAN

  • G.R. No. 119359 December 10, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT CLOUD

  • G.R. No. 124292 December 10, 1996 - GREGORIO C. JAVELOSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110100-02 December 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDORO PEREZ, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 119619 December 13, 1996 - RICHARD HIZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-6-326-MeTC December 16, 1996 - IN RE: FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 92153 December 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO OBZUNAR

  • G.R. Nos. 112716-17 December 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. HERBIAS

  • G.R. Nos. 114011-22 December 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VEVINA BUEMIO

  • G.R. No. 115401 December 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO FABULA, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 120958 December 16, 1996 - FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 123263 December 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, ET.AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-454 December 17, 1996 - CARLOS MENDOZA v. NICOLAS TIONGSON

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1063 December 17, 1996 - BERNARDITA B. CHUA v. BENJAMIN A. GONZALES

  • G.R. Nos. 93026-27 December 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO PAJARO

  • G.R. No. 101771 December 17, 1996 - SPOUSES MARIANO and GILDA FLORENDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 111541 December 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAX MEJOS

  • G.R. No. 119601 December 17, 1996 - DANILO BUHAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 120365 December 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILSON B. QUE

  • G.R. Nos. 103727 & 106496 December 18, 1996 - INTESTATE ESTATE OF DON MARIANO SAN PEDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET.AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. RTJ-90-372-B & P-93-992 December 23, 1996 - COURT EMPLOYEES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT v. JUDGE VIVENCIO A. GALON

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 December 23, 1996 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • G.R. No. 117582 December 23, 1996 - CONRADO SAMILLANO, ET. AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 120038 December 23, 1996 - DIANA E. BELAUNZARAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET.AL.

  • G.R. No. 118079 December 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ESTANISLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118808 December 24, 1996 - JUDGE ANA MARIA I. DOLALAS, ET.AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO, ET, AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1112 December 27, 1996 - ANTONIO ADAPON v. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY

  • G.R. No. 117737 December 27, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMECIO B. CERVANTES

  • G.R. No. 82188 June 30, 1988

    PCGG, ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. P-94-1063   December 17, 1996 - BERNARDITA B. CHUA v. BENJAMIN A. GONZALES

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [Adm. Matter No. P-94-1063. December 17, 1996.]

    BERNARDITA B. CHUA in behalf of ACCORD LOANS, INC., Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN A. GONZALES, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICERS; SHERIFFS; DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES; CASE AT BAR; NOT A CASE OF SIMPLE FORGETFULNESS. — The circumstances of this case as well as the irregular actuations of the respondent reveal that this is not a case of simple forgetfulness. In the affidavit of Mr. Edwin Carreon, Collection Assistant of Accord Loans, Inc., it was stated that their company learned of the levy made by the respondent from the Spouses Nunez sometime in May 1994, but Deputy Sheriff Gonzales failed to inform their office regarding the matter and likewise "failed to produce the goods he seized from Spouses Nunez and/or to give the value thereof." This administrative complaint was sworn to by Mrs. Bernardita Chua on July 20, 1994. Respondent avers, however, that he remembered the writ of execution only when he received a copy of the administrative complaint on September 28, 1994. The assertion of the complainant deserves weight when she stated in her affidavit-complaint that previous demands were made upon the respondent for the delivery of the TV set or its value that this is the standard operating procedure in their kind of business. Hence, while respondent had more than one (1) month to produce the television set under the rules, he did not undertake the delivery, thus evincing a deliberate attempt on his part to retain the appliance for his own benefit.


    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    On May 24, 1991, a writ of execution 1 was issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch m in Civil Case No. 90-166 entitled, "Accord Loans, Inc. v. Spouses Martin F. Nuñez & Elizabeth M. Nuñez, Godofredo Sanchez and Eduardo R Tulfo," for collection of a sum of money, addressed to the City Sheriff of Olongapo City commanding the latter as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "THEREFORE, you are commanded to seize the goods and chattels of the said spouses Martin F. Nuñez and Elizabeth M. Nuñez, except such are by law exempt, and make sale thereof according to the law in such cases made and provided to the amount of the said judgment, together with your fees for the execution, and pay the amount so collected by you thereon to the Accord Loans, Inc., the plaintiff in said action to accept the amount of your fees thereon.

    In case sufficient personal property of the said spouses Martin F. Nuñez and Elizabeth M. Nuñez, cannot be found to satisfy the amount of such judgment, costs, interests and your fees thereon, you are ordered to levy upon the real estate of the said defendants and sell the same in the manner provided for by law, for the satisfaction of the balance of such judgment, costs, interests and your fees thereon; and the same returned to me within sixty (60) days upon receipt with your action.

    WITNESS THE HON. PEDRO T. LAGMAN, Presiding Judge of this Court this 24th day of May 1991 at Angeles City.

    s/ Marlon P. Roque

    t/ MARLON P. ROQUE

    Clerk of Court III" 2

    Pursuant to the above writ, respondent Benjamin A. Gonzales, as Deputy Sheriff of Olongapo City, on July 25, 1991 levied on one (1) unit 20" colored television set worth P5,000.00 owned by the Spouses Martin F. Nuñez & Elizabeth M. Nuñez, the defendants in said case. Complainant alleged that her company found out about the execution of the writ only sometime in May 1994 through its client Spouses Nuñez. When asked about the execution, Sheriff Gonzales failed to produce the television set or to give the amount of P5,000.00 despite sufficient demands from him. Apparently, respondent Gonzales failed to accomplish the sheriff’s return of service and to submit the same before the court issuing the writ.

    On July 20, 1994, Bernardita Chua, as Branch Manager of Accord Loans, Inc., brought the instant complaint for grave misconduct against the respondent sheriff alleging the foregoing facts.

    In his defense, respondent, while admitting that he had taken possession of the television set on July 25, 1991, maintains that he totally forgot about the May 24, 1991 writ of execution when his apartment dwelling was destroyed due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo on July 15, 1991. During this period, he was unable to report to his office "due to the continuous volcanic activities that has (sic) affected his person." He had not been reminded of the levy respecting the subject writ of execution until he received the administrative complaint on September 28, 1994. 3 Upon receipt of said complaint, however, he immediately repaired to the house of a certain Mr. Rodenio Diwa, Jr., with whom he allegedly entrusted the appliance for safekeeping. The latter voluntarily surrendered the item to him in good condition. Thus, he is now ready to deliver the TV set in obedience to the orders of this Court. 4

    We find the defense of respondent Deputy Sheriff unworthy of credence.

    It appears that this is the third administrative complaint filed against Deputy Sheriff Benjamin A. Gonzales. His personal record (201 file) shows that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) By a resolution dated April 15, 1991, in A.M. No. P-87-64, entitled "Jaime Co v. Benjamin Gonzales, Deputy Sheriff Branch 49, Guagua, Pampanga," respondent was (a) reprimanded for bringing and keeping the attached personal properties at his residence and at the house of his parent-in-law without prior consultation with his Officer-In-Charge and/or his Presiding Judge; and (b) reprimanded and imposed a fine equivalent to his three (3) months salary for not returning the attached personal property upon termination of his employment when his temporary appointment as Deputy Sheriff of Branch 49 was no longer renewed by his Presiding Judge and for returning the attached properties only after the Court has issued several orders for its return and for his arrest.

    (2) In A.M. No. P-91-469 (Victoriano Fajota v. Benjamin Gonzales, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, Branch 75, Olongapo City), Executive Judge Alicia Santos in her report and recommendation dated April 22, 1993, found respondent remiss in his duty by not making the proper return of the writ and for exercising his discretion by not levying the real property of the losing defendant in the forcible entry case.

    The Third Division of the Honorable Court in its Resolution, dated August 16, 1993, reprimanded and warned respondent that a similar act will be dealt with more severely in the future.

    Coming to the merits of the complaint, it is significant to note that Mt. Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991. The levy on execution over the television set was made on July 25, 1991, which is more than one (1) month after the eruption. Strangely enough, while the volcanic eruption did not prevent him from executing the writ, it caused him to forget his more urgent duty to file his return of service and/or to sell the property to satisfy the judgment debt as mandated by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Return of writ of execution. — The writ of execution may be made returnable, to the clerk or judge of the court issuing it, at any time not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days after its receipt by the officer who must set forth in writing on its back the whole of his proceedings by virtue thereof, and file it with the clerk or judge to be preserved with the other papers in the case. A certified copy of the record, in the execution book kept by the clerk, of an execution by virtue of which real property has been sold, or of the officer’s return thereon, shall be evidence of the contents of the originals whenever they, or any part thereof, have been lost or destroyed."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Respondent insists that he forgot all about the writ of execution until he was served the administrative complaint. The circumstances of this case as well as the irregular actuations of the respondent reveal that this is not a case of simple forgetfulness. In the affidavits 5 of Mr. Edwin Carreon, Collection Assistant of Accord Loans, Inc., it was stated that their company learned of the levy made by the respondent from the Spouses Nuñez sometime in May 1994, but Deputy Sheriff Gonzales failed to inform their office regarding the matter and likewise "failed to produce the goods he seized from Spouses Nuñez and/or to give the value thereof." This administrative complaint was sworn to by Mrs. Bernardita Chua on July 20, 1994. Respondent avers, however, that he remembered the writ of execution only when he received a copy of the administrative complaint on September 28, 1994. The assertion of the complainant deserves weight when she stated in her affidavit-complaint 6 that previous demands were made upon the respondent for the delivery of the TV set or its value considering that this is the standard operating procedure in their kind of business. Hence, while respondent had more than one (1) month to produce the television set under the rules, he did not undertake the delivery, thus evincing a deliberate attempt on his part to retain the appliance for his own benefit.

    WHEREFORE, considering that this is his third offense in the performance of his duties as a Deputy Sheriff, respondent Benjamin A. Gonzales is DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits. He is disqualified from reemployment in the national and local governments, as well as in any government instrumentality or agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

    This decision is immediately executory and respondent Deputy Sheriff is further ordered to cease and desist from discharging the functions of his office upon receipt of this Decision. Let a copy of this decision be entered in the personal records of the Respondent.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 6-7.

    2. Ibid.

    3. Rollo, p 12.

    4. Rollo, pp. 18-19.

    5. Rollo, p. 9.

    6. Rollo, p. 5.

    Adm. Matter No. P-94-1063   December 17, 1996 - BERNARDITA B. CHUA v. BENJAMIN A. GONZALES


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED