FIRST
DIVISION
DOMINADOR
D. BORNASAL, JR.,Clerk of Court and
Ex-Officio Sheriff,RTC, Valenzuela, Metro Manila,
Complainant,
A. M. No. P-97-1250
October 6, 1997
-versus-
DEPUTY
SHERIFF JAIME T. MONTES,RTC,
Branch 75, Valenzuela, Metro Manila,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
The
constitutional mandate[1]
requiring all public officers and employees to be accountable to the
people
at all times is a tall order. For its part, this Court condemns and
would
never countenance 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. Such violation merits a penalty commensurate
to the gravity of the act but not without mercy and compassion when the
facts surrounding the violation so dictate.
Petitioner
charged respondent deputy sheriff with
certain unauthorized acts relative to a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure
of real estate mortgage which was lodged at the petitioner's office, by
virtue of Act No. 3115, as amended, allowing extrajudicial foreclosure
sales under the direction of the petitioner, as Ex-Oficio Sheriff.cralaw:red
In a
Letter-Complaint dated April 3, 1996, addressed
to Executive Judge Adriano R. Osorio of the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, petitioner made the following allegations: [a] that upon
examination of the subject petition for extra-judicial foreclosure
dated
December 6, 1995 docketed as Foreclosure Case No. 738-V-95 entitled
"Fourleaf
Fundlending and Development Corporation [FFDC] v. Sps. Baltazora Parras
Calderon and Felino Calderon," petitioner realized that the real
property
involved was located at Taytay, Rizal, hence, he refused to issue a
Notice
of Sheriff's Sale; [b] that respondent deputy sheriff, together with a
lady representative of FFDC argued that pursuant to the provisions of
the
Promissory Note between FFDC and the Spouses Calderon, the stipulated
venue
of any legal action relative to the contract of loan, secured by a real
estate mortgage, shall be in Valenzuela, Metro Manila or in any
competent
court at the option of FFDC, as mortgagee; [c] that petitioner insisted
that he could not conduct any foreclosure sale of the subject property
which was located at Taytay, Rizal based on the limitation contained in
Section 2 of Act No. 3135, as amended; [d] that on January 16, 1996,
upon
petitioner's advise, FFDC filed a withdrawal of its petition for
extrajudicial
foreclosure; [e] that on April 1, 1996, petitioner received summons
from
the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal in a case for Annulment of
Foreclosure, Specific Performance with Damages and Preliminary
Injunction
with Prayer for Urgent Issuance of a TRO filed by Spouses Calderon
against
him and FFDC as a consequence of the Notice of Sheriffs Sale in
Foreclosure
Case No. 738-V-95 signed by respondent deputy sheriff purportedly for
and
in behalf of the petitioner; and [f] that respondent deputy sheriff
issued
the aforesaid Notice of Sheriff's Sale without authority from the
petitioner
and that the publication apparently effected in connection therewith
was
also unauthorized.cralaw:red
On April 3, 1996,
in his Comment, respondent deputy
sheriff categorically admitted all the accusations made by the
petitioner
against him in the latter's letter-complaint. However, by way of
defense,
respondent deputy sheriff invoked good faith and declared that his
issuance
of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale and its subsequent publication were
prompted
by the vehement request of Spouses Calderon.
After due deliberation, we are convinced that
the unauthorized acts complained of constituted grave abuse of
authority
and gross misconduct which deserve a sterner penalty than reprimand as
recommended by the Executive Judge.cralaw:red
It is evident
from the record of this case that
the defense of good faith under the circumstances is unavailing. As
deputy
sheriff, respondent could not have been honestly unaware of the legal
consequences
of his act of effecting a notice of sheriff's sale and its publication
after a withdrawal of the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of
real
estate mortgage was submitted by FFDC as petitioner/mortgagee.cralaw:red
In the instant
case, the subject Notice of Sheriff's
Sale was never included in the list of foreclosure cases to be raffled
for publication as required by the rules in view of the fact that
Foreclosure
Case No. 738-V-95 was subsequently withdrawn upon petitioner's advice.
Petitioner directed FFDC's lady representative to file FFDC's petition
for extrajudicial foreclosure in the Office of the Clerk of Court that
has jurisdiction over Taytay Rizal, in accordance with Section 2 of Act
3135, as amended, which provides that:
The sale shall be made in the province in
which
the property sold is situated and in case the place within said
province
in which the sale is to be made is the subject of stipulation, the sale
shall be made in said place or in the municipal building of the
municipality
in which the property or part thereof is situated.
Respondent
deputy sheriff ought to have been guided
by his superior's advice regarding the withdrawal of the subject
foreclosure
case. As the enforcement arm of the judiciary, deputy sheriffs must at
all times be circumspect in the performance of their duties.
Respondent's
act of signing the Notice of Sheriff's Sale apparently for and in
behalf
of his superior is a clear case of insubordination and gross
misconduct.
His alleged partiality in favor of the mortgagors to help them settle
their
obligation cannot be countenanced by this Court.
Once again, it is
well to remind all persons serving
the Government through its Judicial Arm that the conduct and behavior
of
every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is tasked with a
heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not
only
be characterized by propriety and decorum but also, and above all else,
be above suspicion.[2]
Sheriffs and
deputy sheriffs, as officers of the
Court and, therefore, agents of the law, must discharge their duties
with
due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court's writs and
processes and in implementing the orders of the court, they cannot
afford
to err without affecting the efficiency of the enforcement process of
the
administration of justice.[3]
It is beyond
question that the administration
of justice is a sacred task so that respondent deputy sheriff, by the
very
nature of his duties and responsibilities, should have borne in mind
that
his unauthorized acts were violative of the norms of public
accountability,
hence, contributory to the diminishing image of the people's faith in
the
Judiciary.[4]
In fine, in view
of all the foregoing, we are
in accord with OCA's observation that the "respondent's plea for
forgiveness
appears sincere and proceeds from a voluntary admission of the charges
from a repentant heart" so that this Court tempers with mercy and
compassion
the imposable penalty in the instant case.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, Deputy Sheriff
Jaime T. Montes is suspended from office for a period of one [1] month
without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense
will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan,
JJ
.,
concur.
____________________________________
Endnotes
[1]Sec. 1, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution.
[2]
See Atty. Wilfredo C. Banogan v. Felipe T. Arias, Sheriff III, Office
of
the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Davao City, A. M. No. P-97-1240, prom. June
19,
1997 citing Del Rosario v. Bascar, Jr., 206 SCRA 678 [1992]; and
Jereos,
Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., 71 SCRA 126 [1976].
[3]
See NBI and Santiago N. Salvador v. Rodolfo G. Tuliao, Sheriff IV of
the
RTC of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, A. M. No. P-96-1184, prom. March
24,
1997; and Felisa Elic Vda. de Abellera v. Nemesio N. Dalisay, Deputy
Sheriff,
RTC, Branch 9, Balayan, Batangas, A. M. No. P-87-100, prom. February
12,
1997.
[4]
See Eddie Babor v. Vito P. Garchitorena, Deputy Sheriff, RTC, OCC, Pili
Camarines Sur, A. M. No. P-94-1070, prom. April 8, 1997 citing Sy v.
Academia
198 SCRA [1991]; and Ernio Portes v. Deputy Provincial Sheriff Cesario
G. Tepace, A. M. No. P-92-1235, prom. Jan. 30, 1997 citing Vda. de
Tisado
v. Tabliza, et al., 253 SCRA 646 [1996]. |