January 2005 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
A.M. No. P-05-1930 - LOLITO B. SULIT v. SOTERO A. MATIAS
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. NO. P-05-1930 : January 14, 2005]
LOLITO B. SULIT, Complainant, v. SOTERO A. MATIAS, SHERIFF IV REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, BRANCH 263, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The instant administrative complaint arose when Lolito B. Sulit filed a sworn Affidavit-Complaint1 dated June 25, 2003 charging Sotero A. Matias, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 263, with gross misconduct.
The complainant alleged that he owned a maroon Toyota four-by-four pick-up truck with plate number URY 362. By virtue of a writ of preliminary attachment issued by the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 263, on April 4, 2003, the respondent took the vehicle into his custody. The complainant further alleged that on April 17, 2003, he and his wife Marivic Sulit were on their way to Concepcion, Tarlac from Nueva Ecija in his Kia Besta van with the Spouses Edilberto and Perla Venzon, Flor Moraleda, Glenn Pascua, Monette Pascua and Marciano Pascua. At about 2:00 p.m., while they were on the road to La Paz, Tarlac, they spotted the pick-up truck with the respondent on the wheel. They followed the truck and noticed that even the back portion was full of passengers. The pick-up truck stopped at a small hut, and everyone alighted, including the respondent.ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ
The complainant then confronted the respondent and said, "Bakit mo dala iyan? 'Di ba dapat nasa storage yan ng RTC ng Pasig?" The respondent replied, "Kasi pinadala sa akin ni Judge Geronimo at pinagamit." To this the complainant said, "Pag nasira at naaksidente ka, paano yan?" The respondent apologized and said, "Pasensya ka na, nagamit ko ang sasakyan mo kasi ako ay nagpapabasa ng pasyon dito at kasama ko ang pamilya ko."
The complainant further alleged that his friend Junjun Macalintal again spotted the pick-up truck in Quiñahan, Quezon, sometime in June 2003. Thinking that he was the one driving the vehicle, Macalintal approached the driver and was surprised to find a man with a scar on his face, the respondent sheriff.
In his Comment dated July 1, 2003, the respondent admitted that the vehicle in question was in custodia legis, and was taken from the complainant by virtue of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued by Pairing Judge Isagani A. Geronimo of the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 263. He further alleged that '
2. Sometime in the year 2000 a Memorandum was issued by the Governor of Rizal directing the Deputy Sheriffs/Office of the Clerk of Court to remove all attached/levied vehicles parked in front of the Hall of Justice for lack of parking space. For this reason, for lack of a venue/warehouse where vehicles may be deposited, attached/levied units are brought to safer garage. In my case, in my home.
3. During the holy week of 2003, I received an emergency call from my cousin informing me that our grandmother was very ill, forcing me to go home to the province. Aware that the attached vehicle in my possession cannot be left in the Capital Compound, I decided to bring the vehicle instead as there was no other safer garage where I can deposit the unit.
4. Further, as no one would be left in the house to look after the vehicle, I was apprehensive to leave the vehicle in my garage. Apart from the fact that bad elements might steal/carnap the vehicle, there is also the incident of other unforeseeable events to consider such as fire. In fact, just days prior to the date in question, two separate incidents of fire which razed two houses away from my residence occurred.
5. Likewise, there is no truth to the allegation of Lolito B. Sulit that I used the pick-up in going to Quezon province. There is no reason for me to go to Quezon either officially or otherwise. More importantly, as there was a communication from the plaintiff Vicente Josefa that the defendant Lolito Sulit has a buyer of the vehicle named Rolando Yamsuang who wants to see the unit, I made arrangements with the guard to allow me to use the empty space near Eulogio Rodriguez Building as parking space for the pick-up. Thus, since May 23, 2003, the vehicle has been parked there. Attached herewith is a copy of the logbook of the Security Guard and Certification as Annexes "A" and "B."
6. My act in using the pick-up in going to the province was not tainted with malice nor abuse of authority. I used the same with the best of interest in mind and in order to avert possible greater damage to the same.2
The matter was assigned to Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor of the RTC of Pasig City, for investigation, report and recommendation.3
The complainant testified that he knew the respondent because he was the one who effected the attachment of the vehicle in question on April 4, 2003. He was told that the vehicle would be brought to the RTC of Pasig City to be deposited. The next day, he went to the RTC to file a counter-bond, but was told that the P50,000.00 he brought was not enough, that P100,000.00 was needed for the bond. The complainant asked to see the vehicle, but the respondent did not allow him to do so.
The complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint-affidavit, that he saw his pick-up truck fully loaded with passengers being driven by the respondent somewhere in Tarlac. When he told Judge Geronimo about the matter, the latter got angry and stated that he did not give any authority to the respondent sheriff to use the vehicle. The complainant's wife, Marivic Sulit, corroborated the statements of her husband.
For his part, the respondent sheriff testified that when he attached the subject vehicle on April 4, 2003, he parked it in front of the Justice Hall Building. In the first week of April 2003, former Executive Judge Jose Hernandez met with the sheriffs and told them that they only had five (5) days within which to remove the attached vehicles in front of the Justice Hall Building. He complied with this directive, since the certificates of sale would not be signed in case of non-compliance. Bienvenido Calindas, Jr. and Jose R. Santos corroborated the testimony of the respondent as to the said meeting.
The respondent then brought the vehicle to his residence in Rodriguez, Rizal. He did not bring the vehicle to a bonded warehouse since the plaintiff, Vicente Josefa, was still in the process of filing a Motion for Custody of the Vehicle. Furthermore, he was unable to look for a bonded warehouse. While he admitted that he used the complainant's vehicle, the respondent justified it by asserting that he did not leave it at his residence for fear that it might be stolen or burned. He narrated that a few days before he went to Tarlac, two (2) houses at the back of his house were burned due to faulty wirings, and presented a certification of the Bureau of Fire Protection, Rodriguez, Rizal, issued by Sr. Fire Officer II Edilberto S. Estanislao dated July 10, 2003.4 He believed that the vehicle would be safer if he brought it along with him to Tarlac.ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ
In his Report dated September 27, 2004, Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor made the following findings and recommendation:
Respondent Sheriff's reason to bring the subject vehicle to his house has no merit. He admitted that he failed to consult the Presiding Judge of Branch 263, the former Executive Judge, and the Clerk of Court. It appears that he decided to bring the subject vehicle to his house on his own. Worse, he later brought the subject vehicle to the province. Unexpectedly, however, the complainant saw him. When confronted, Respondent Sheriff alleged that the Presiding Judge of Branch 263 had authorized him to use the subject vehicle. When Complainant verified from the Presiding Judge of Branch 263, Hon. Isagani A. Geronimo, if indeed such authority was given, he was told by the Judge that Respondent Sheriff was not authorized to bring the subject vehicle to the province. Thus, Respondent Sheriff's use of the subject vehicle in going to the province was for a private and personal purpose and, therefore, unauthorized.
RECOMMENDATION:
Respectfully submitting to the Honorable Court the recommendation that Respondent SHERIFF IV SOTERO A. MATIAS of RTC, Branch 263, Pasig City, be ordered to pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).5
The findings of the Executive Judge are well taken.
The respondent sheriff is a ranking officer of the court, a public official entrusted with a fiduciary role. He plays an important part in the administration of justice and is called upon to discharge his duties with integrity, due care and circumspection. Anything less is unacceptable.6 As a public officer, he is a repository of public trust and is under obligation to perform the duties of his office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of his ability.7 Thus, by his actuations, the respondent displayed conduct short of the stringent standards required of court employees.8
It must be stressed that Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.9 As officers of the court, they should, at all times, show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties. The imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court is to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice.10 Any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary is condemned and cannot be countenanced.11 Being at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court.12
Verily, the respondent blatantly violated Section 7(b) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court when he used the vehicle subject of the attachment for personal purposes. In enforcing a writ of attachment, a sheriff who takes personal property capable of manual delivery shall safely keep it in his custody after issuing the corresponding receipt therefor.13 The rules, however, do not authorize the sheriff to use the property subject of the attachment while the same is in his custody.
It is beyond question that the administration of justice is a sacred task, so that the respondent, by the very nature of his duties and responsibilities, should have borne in mind that his unauthorized act was violative of the norms of public accountability; hence, contributory to the diminishing image of the people's faith in the judiciary.14 The respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.15 Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first offense.16
WHEREFORE, for neglect of duty, respondent Sheriff Sotero A. Matias is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of Three (3) Months without pay. He is STERNLY WARNED that any repetition of the same act in the future will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be entered in the respondent's personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman), no part.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2 Id. at 9-10.
3 Id. at 17.
4 Exhibit "1."
5 Report, p. 20.
6 Andy Lobregat v. Cenen L. Amoranto, etc., A.M. No. P-04-1781, February 18, 2004.
7 Vda. de Velayo v. Ramos, 374 SCRA 1 (2002).
8 Renato M. Daguman v. Melvin T. Bagabaldo, etc., A.M. No. P-04-1799, March 31, 2004.
9 Ignacio v. Payumo, 344 SCRA 169 (2000).
10 Andal v. Tonga, 414 SCRA 524 (2003).
11 Madrid v. Quebral, 413 SCRA 1 (2003).
12 Cabanatan v. Molina, 370 SCRA 16 (2001).
13 Vilma Hilda D. Villanueva-Fabela, et al. v. Ralph S. Lee, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-04-1518, January 15, 2004.
14 Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes, 280 SCRA 181 (1997).
15 Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 363 SCRA 480 (2001).
16 Cañete v. Manlosa, 412 SCRA 580 (2003).
