THIRD DIVISION
EULOGIO B.
GUEVARRA,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1540
March 6, 2003
-versus-
VICENTE
S. SICAT,
JR., SHERIFF IV,OFFICE
OF THE
CLERK
OF COURT,REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT,
ANGELES
CITY,
Respondent.D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
The instant administrative
complaint filed by Eulogio B. Guevarra charges Vicente S. Sicat, Jr.,
Sheriff
IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City,
with
neglect of duty and/or inefficiency for failure to implement the writ
of
execution and order of demolition in Civil Case No. 272, "Eulogio B.
Guevarra
vs. Ross Chessman and Teodoro Baul and wife" for ejectment.
Complainant was the
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 272 decided by the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC)
in his favor. After the decision became final and executory, a
writ
of execution was issued. In implementing the writ, respondent
sheriff
gave the defendants a period of ten (10) days within which to vacate
the
premises but they refused. Eventually, the MTC issued an order of
demolition.cralaw:red
Complainant alleged
that on various dates (in the course of the execution of the decision)
respondent demanded and received from him the following sums of money
intended
for sheriff's expenses:
(a)
November 17,
1997
P700.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b)
July 10,
1998
1,000.00
(c)
September 2,
1998
5,000.00
(d)
November 12,
1998
3,000.00
The last two amounts
are evidenced with receipts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Despite the lapse of
time and complainant's repeated requests, respondent failed to
implement
the writ of execution and order of demolition.cralaw:red
In his comment on the
complaint, respondent denied the charges, contending that what he
received
from the complainant was only P8,000.00 for which he issued the
corresponding
receipts. He gave this amount to the persons he hired to assist
in
the demolition of the premises, namely: Rudolfo Garcia, Eduardo Cortez
and Nicolas A. Bulaon. However, the demolition did not
materialize
because the defendants placed barbed wire around the premises and
threatened
those three persons. In their joint affidavit dated April 17,
2000,
Bulaon and Garcia stated that they are willing to return the money to
the
complainant.[1]
Court Administrator
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., in his Report and Recommendation dated
November
5, 2001, found respondent guilty of neglect in the performance of his
duty.
He recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as an administrative
matter
and that respondent be fined in the amount of P5,000.00 with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more
severely. His "Evaluation" reads:
"The respondent is negligent
in the performance of his duty as a Sheriff. The respondent said
that he failed to implement the writ of demolition because the heirs of
the defendant placed barbed wire around the premises and threatened to
fight and resist the demolition of the structure built on the
property.
The reason given by the respondent why he failed to implement the writ
of demolition is flimsy and it is a proof of his inefficiency.
Respondent
can always seek the intervention of police authorities or Barangay
officials
of the place in order to accomplish the task he was mandated by the
court
to do. There will be no end to litigations if Sheriffs would be
afraid
to implement the writs issued by the court."
Pursuant to the Resolution
dated January 14, 2002 of this Court, both parties
manifested
that they are submitting this case for decision on the basis of the
pleadings/records
already filed.cralaw:red
In implementing the
writ of execution, Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court
prescribes
the procedure to be followed by the sheriffs, thus:
"SEC. 9. Sheriffs and
other persons serving processes. -
xxx.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In addition to the
fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court,
preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff's expenses in
serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied
upon,
attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel,
guards' fees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated
by
the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval
of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such
amount
with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who shall disburse the
same
to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to
liquidation
within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any
unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit.
A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with
his
return, and the sheriff's expenses shall be taxed as costs against the
judgment debtor."
It is clear from the
above Rule that before an interested party pays the sheriff‘s expenses,
the latter should first estimate the amount to be approved by the
court.
Upon approval, the interested party deposits the amount with the clerk
of court and ex-oficio sheriff. The latter then disburses the
amount
to the sheriff assigned to execute the writ. The amount so
disbursed
is subject to liquidation. Any unspent amount should be refunded
to the party making the deposit. Thereafter, the sheriff must
render
a full report.[2]
In the instant case,
respondent sheriff simply demanded and received money from
the complainant without first informing him of the estimated expenses
and
without securing court approval, in violation of the above Rule.
Neither did respondent advise the complainant that the sheriff's
expenses
shall be deposited with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff upon
approval
by the court of the estimated expenses.cralaw:red
Nonetheless, there is
no showing in the records that in demanding the sums of P5,000.00 and
P3,000.00,
evidenced by receipts, respondent was motivated by intent to
gain.
In fact, the persons he hired to assist in the demolition executed a
joint
affidavit stating that they are willing to return the full amount to
the
complainant. Even complainant himself merely charges respondent
with
negligence and/or inefficiency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, respondent's act
of demanding and receiving money from the complainant to be defrayed as
sheriff's expenses without observing the proper procedures required by
the Rules, makes him liable for the administrative offense of simple
misconduct,
as we have held in the similar case of Carmelita S. Danao vs. Jesus T.
Franco, Jr.[3]
Likewise, for his failure to implement the writ of execution, he is
guilty
of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.cralaw:red
Such improper conduct
warrants sanction from this Court since it undoubtedly erodes the faith
and confidence of litigants in the administration of justice.
This
Court has reminded all court employees, specially sheriffs, of their
duties
in this wise:
"At the grassroots of
our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are indispensably
in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should be
geared
towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the
image
of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official
or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to
the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative
sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name
and standing as a temple of justice."[4]
In the same vein, this
Court held in Roberto Ignacio vs. Rodolfo Payumo, Deputy Sheriff, RTC,
Quezon City, Branch 93,[5]
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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
process
of the administration of justice. Sheriffs play an important role in
the
administration of justice and, as agents of the law, high standards are
expected of them."
Sheriffs are indispensable
in the administration of justice since they are charged with the
delicate
task of the execution and enforcement of final judgments of the courts,
indisputably the most difficult phase in any judicial proceeding.
If not enforced, such decisions become empty victories of the
prevailing
parties. Thus, the sheriffs must act with reasonable celerity and
promptness so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice;
otherwise,
the decisions, orders or other processes of the courts would be futile.[6]
Respondent sheriff falls
short of the judicial standard.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds respondent VICENTE S. SICAT, JR., Sheriff IV, assigned at the
Office
of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, guilty of
SIMPLE
MISCONDUCT and INEFFICIENCY AND INCOMPETENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
OFFICIAL
DUTIES and is SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) month without pay
and other fringe benefits including leave credits, and is FINED in the
sum of P10,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
offense
shall be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban
and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, J.,
on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 30.
[2]
Carmelita S. Danao vs. Jesus T. Franco, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 215,
Q.C.,
A.M. No. P-02-1569, Nov. 13, 2002; Ong vs. Meregildo, 233 SCRA 632
(1994);
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. Noel V. Quilantang, Sheriff IV,
RTC-Br.
53, Bacolod City, A.M. No. P-01-1481, July 5, 2001.
[3]
A.M. No. P-02-1569, November 13, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Vda. de Velayo vs. Ramos, A.M. No. P-99-1332, January 17, 2002, citing
Canlas vs. Balasbas, 337 SCRA 41 (2000); Vda. de Abellera vs. Dalisay,
268 SCRA 64, 67 (1997).
[5]
A.M. No. P-00-1396, October 24, 2000, citing Bornasal, Jr. vs. Montes,
280 SCRA 181 (1997) and Llamado vs. Ravelo, 280 SCRA 597 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Moya vs. Bassig, 138 SCRA 49 (1985) cited in Orlando T. Mendoza vs.
Sheriff
IV Rosbert M. Tuquero, and Sheriff IV Antonio V. Leaño, Jr.,
A.M.
P-99-1343, June 28, 2001; Teresita T. Gonzales La'o & Co.,
Inc.
vs. Sheriff Jadi T. Hatab, A.M. No. P-99-1337, April 5, 2000; Jumio vs.
Egay-Eviota, 231 SCRA 551 (1994); see Nicanor T. Santos vs. Delilah
Gonzales-Munoz,
Clerk of Court, RTC-OCC, Baguio City, and Romeo R. Florendo, Sheriff
IV,
RTC-OCC, Baguio City, A.M. No. P-02-1628, August 14, 2002. |