FIRST DIVISION
DIMAS ABALDE,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1643
April 1, 2003
-versus-
ANTONIO ROQUE,
JR.,
SHERIFF IV,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 29, TOLEDO CITY,
Respondent.
chan robles virtual law library
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
R E S O L U T I
O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Dimas Abalde
was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. T-674 before the Regional Trial
Court
of Toledo City, Branch 29, entitled "Dimas Abalde, Plaintiff versus
Luzviminda
Dulang, et al., Defendants." On March 2, 1999, the trial court
rendered
judgment in his favor, awarding to him damages, attorney’s fees and
litigation
expenses totaling One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00).[1]
The decision became final and was duly entered in the book of judgments.[2]
Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued commanding respondent
Antonio
Roque, Jr., the Court Sheriff, to enforce the said decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 4, 1999,
complainant and respondent sheriff went to the Land Bank of the
Philippines,
Cebu Main Branch, to collect the amount of the judgment award.[3]
However, it was only respondent sheriff who transacted with the bank
personnel.
After completing the transaction, respondent sheriff handed to
complainant
cash in the amount of Ninety Thousand Pesos (P90,000.00) only, which
was
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) short of the judgment award.[4]
Respondent told complainant that the balance of the judgment award will
be remitted by the defendants-obligors in due time.[5]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It was only sometime
in February 2000 that respondent presented to complainant a document
entitled
"Report of Sheriff’s Expenses," which purportedly listed, in general
terms,
the various expenses incurred in the execution of the judgment in the
total
sum of Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Pesos (P16,260.00).[6]
The Report was not accompanied by receipts or other documents to
substantiate
said expenses.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, on February 15,
2000, complainant filed with the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA)
and with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas an Affidavit-Complaint,
accusing
respondent sheriff of grave misconduct. The Office of the
Ombudsman-Visayas
referred the case to the OCA.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment,
respondent
maintained that he spent the balance of the monetary award for valid
execution
expenses, and that complainant was satisfied with the respondent’s
explanation
and no longer interested in pursuing his various complaints against him.[7]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 16, 2002,
the case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court
of Toledo City for investigation.[8]
In the hearings scheduled, complainant manifested his lack of interest
in pursuing the charges he had filed against respondent. The
latter,
on the other hand, maintained that his actions were legal, further
admitting
that he did not turn over to complainant the amount of Three Thousand
Seven
Hundred Forty Pesos (P3,740.00), representing the sum of money
unaccounted
for in the "Report of Sheriff’s Expenses."[9]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Report and
Recommendation,
Executive Judge Cesar O. Estrera of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo
City recommended the dismissal of the case.[10]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case was thereafter
referred to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. In
its report, the OCA found that respondent failed to comply with the
procedure
for the payment of sheriff’s expenses as laid down in Rule 141, Section
9 of the Rules of Court. Respondent’s acts gave rise to the
suspicion
that he had misappropriated the balance of the monetary award.
The
OCA recommended that respondent sheriff Antonio C. Roque be suspended
for
a period of one (1) month without pay with a stern warning that a
repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future will merit severe
disciplinary
action.[11]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the
recommendation
of the OCA, except as to the period of suspension.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 141, Section 9
of the Rules of Court provides in part:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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, guard’s
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.
(Emphasis supplied)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As can be clearly seen
from the above-quoted Rule, the steps that must be followed before any
sums may be required of the prevailing party are: first, the
sheriff
must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him; second, he
must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; third, the
approved
estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the
Clerk of Court and ex-oficio sheriff; fourth, the Clerk of Court shall
disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and fifth, the executing
sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for
rendering
a return on the writ. Any portion of the amounts received by the
sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is
an
unlawful exaction which renders him liable for grave misconduct and
gross
dishonesty.[12]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
it is undisputed that respondent did not make an estimate of sheriff’s
expenses prior to charging complainant with the same. Hence,
nothing
was submitted to the court for approval. Also, it appears that it
was respondent sheriff, and not the Clerk of Court, who took custody of
the funds released by the depositary bank.[13]
Finally, even assuming that respondent’s "Report of Sheriff’s Expenses"
is correct, nevertheless he admitted his failure to turn over to
complainant
the amount of P3,740.00,[14]
in violation of the rules and jurisprudence.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact that complainant
desisted from pursuing his charges against respondent is of no
moment.
The desistance of the complainant against respondent is not a bar to
the
disciplinary sanction. The overriding need to maintain the faith
and confidence of the people in the judiciary demands that erring
personnel
be sanctioned, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the complaints.
Indeed, these proceedings do not depend on the whims and caprice of the
concerned employees, for the aggrieved party is the court system.
The issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a
cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employee has
breached
the norms and standards of the judiciary. Clearly, it is our duty
to root out misconduct among the employees, regardless of the parties’
desistance.[16]
As correctly observed by the OCA, to rule otherwise would subvert fair
and prompt administration of justice as well as undermine the
discipline
of court personnel.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sheriffs and deputy
sheriffs, as officers of the court and, therefore, agents of 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.[18]
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as
agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, respondent Antonio Roque, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial
Court
of Toledo City, is found GUILTY of grave misconduct. He is hereby
SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months without pay, with a STERN
WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be
dealt
with more severely. Further, he is ordered to immediately TURN
OVER
to complainant Dimas Abalde the amount of P3,740.00 which he failed to
account in his "Report of Sheriff’s Expenses."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Memorandum, Office of the Court Administrator, p. 1.
[2]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 3; Respondent’s Comment to Complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint,
p. 3.
[6]
Rollo, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 10; Respondent’s Annexes "1" and "2".
[8]
Rollo, p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, p. 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
OCA Memorandum, A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-850-P, p. 3.
[12]
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Quilantang, A.M. No. P-01-1481,
5 July 2001, 360 SCRA 499, 505-506, citing Florendo v. Enrile, A.M. No.
P-92-695, 7 December 1994, 239 SCRA 22, 30.
[13]
Rollo, pp. 4, 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Rollo, p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Canlas v. Balasbas, A.M. No. P-99-1317, 1 August 2000, 337 SCRA 41, 45,
citing Vda. De Gillego v. Roxas, A.M. No. P-91-611, 5 August 1994, 235
SCRA 158.
[16]
Dionisio v. Gillera, A.M. No. P-99-1330, 12 August 1999, 312 SCRA 287,
295, citing Estreller v. Manatad Jr., 335 Phil. 1077 (1997) and Lledo
v.
Lledo, A.M. No. P-95-1167, 21 December 1998, 300 SCRA 310.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
OCA Memorandum, A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-850-P, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Ignacio v. Payumo, A.M. No. P-00-1396, 24 October 2000, 344 SCRA 169,
172,
citing Bornasal, Jr. v. Montes, 345 Phil. 401 (1997).
[19]
Ignacio v. Payumo, supra, citing Llamado v. Ravelo, 345 Phil. 842
(1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |