December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2517 : December 16, 2009] PHILCHI R, TAN V. MODESTO P. PASCUBILLO, JR., SHERIFFIV, REGIONAL TRIAL :
[A.M. No. P-08-2517 : December 16, 2009]
PHILCHI R, TAN V. MODESTO P. PASCUBILLO, JR., SHERIFFIV, REGIONAL TRIAL
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 December 2009:
A.M. No. P-08-2517 (Philchi R, Tan v. Modesto P. Pascubillo, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Naval, Biliran).-
The complainant in this case, Philchi R. Tan (Tan), claimed that on March 29, 2006 the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Courts of Biliran-Cabucgayan issued a writ of execution in Civil Case 113 to enforce the judgment in his favor. But, since the court had no serving sheriff, it addressed the writ to respondent Modesto P. Pascubillo, Jr. (Pascubillo), Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Naval, Biliran. Tan complains that Pascubillo had not implemented the writ from the time of its issuance to the time Tan filed the present complaint one year later in March 2007.[1]
On the other hand, respondent Pascubillo denied in his comment of May 22, 2007 the charge against him. He said that soon after he got the writ, he immediately sent a demand letter to the defendant, giving him 10 days from receipt to settle his obligations but the defendant did not. The latter also did not heed his repeated personal demands to pay. Pascubillo claims that when he went to the defendant's house, he noticed a motorcycle that he thought he could later levy on.
Respondent Pascubillo also stated that on January 9, 2007 he submitted a report to the court, detailing the estimated expenses and fees needed to implement the writ. But the newly appointed judge of the branch was unable to act on the proposed expenses because he still had to undergo an immersion process. Even then, Pascubillo wrote the Chief of Police of Cabucgayan, Biliran, requesting assistance for the implementation of the writ by levy.
Respondent Pascubillo added that on March 16, 2007 he submitted another report, stating that he talked to defendant Imelda Brecio and told her of his intent to levy on their motorcycle but she begged him not to, promising that she would initially deposit P25,000.00 that evening for remittance to complainant Tan. This did not, however, happen.[2]
Replying to respondent Pascubillo, complainant Tan said he gave the sheriff a list of the defendant's properties, yet he would levy only on her motorcycle. And, when he had a chance, Pascubillo did not seize the motorcycle. Further the latter did not furnish Tan with a copy of the sheriff s report.[3]
After investigation, on May 16, 2008 the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its report finding respondent Pascubillo remiss in his duties. The RTC issued the writ of execution on March 29, 2006 yet he sent his demand letter to the defendant only on July 6, 2006, more than two months later. He also did not make the required periodic report as he submitted only two sheriffs return dated January 9, 2007 and March 16, 2007. And he did not furnish complainant Tan any of these. [4] The OCA recommended the imposition of a fine of P10,000.00 on Pascubillo with a stem warning against a repetition of the same offense.[5]
On August 4, 2008 the Court required the parties to inform it whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. Only complainant Tan responded in the affirmative. Respondent Pascubillo wrote, on the other hand, that he had done all he could to execute the judgment in the case, even spending his own funds. He apologized that he had committed some mistakes and infractions in the process.[6]
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA. It finds respondent Pascubillo guilty of dereliction of his duty as a sheriff for failing (1) to execute the writ within 30 days from his receipt of it; (2) to submit his report of service within the same period; (3) to make periodic reports to the trial court until the judgment was fully satisfied; and (4) to furnish the parties with copies of the reports.
Respondent Pascubillo should have immediately levied on the properties of the defendant after 10 days following the latter's receipt of the notice to pay. Instead, succumbing to defendant's request and promise to later make a down payment on her liability, he did not proceed to levy on her motorcycle.
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires the sheriff to render a report on the action he had taken on a writ of execution within 30 days from its receipt and every 30 days after until the judgment is fully satisfied. He must also furnish the parties copies of his reports. Here, the record shows that respondent Pascubillo did not comply with this requirement. All that he submitted from the time of the issuance of the writ of execution on March 29, 2006 up to the filing of the complaint against him on March 22, 2007 were the reports of January 9 and March 16, 2007.
The sheriffs submission of the return and periodic reports is a duty that he must not take lightly. They serve to update the court as to the status of the execution and to give it an idea as to why the judgment had not been satisfied. They also provide insights as to how efficient court processes are after judgment had become executory. The overall purpose of the requirement is to ensure speedy execution of decisions.[7]
This Court finds Sheriff Pascubillo, Jr. administratively liable for simple neglect of duty, which is defined under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[8] as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is classified as a less grave offense which carries the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[9] Considering that this is respondent's first administrative offense, this Court adopts the recommended penalty of the OCA.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Modesto P. Pascubillo, Jr. guilty of simple neglect of duty and FINES him Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S-O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of December, 2009.
A.M. No. P-08-2517 (Philchi R, Tan v. Modesto P. Pascubillo, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Naval, Biliran).-
The complainant in this case, Philchi R. Tan (Tan), claimed that on March 29, 2006 the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Courts of Biliran-Cabucgayan issued a writ of execution in Civil Case 113 to enforce the judgment in his favor. But, since the court had no serving sheriff, it addressed the writ to respondent Modesto P. Pascubillo, Jr. (Pascubillo), Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Naval, Biliran. Tan complains that Pascubillo had not implemented the writ from the time of its issuance to the time Tan filed the present complaint one year later in March 2007.[1]
On the other hand, respondent Pascubillo denied in his comment of May 22, 2007 the charge against him. He said that soon after he got the writ, he immediately sent a demand letter to the defendant, giving him 10 days from receipt to settle his obligations but the defendant did not. The latter also did not heed his repeated personal demands to pay. Pascubillo claims that when he went to the defendant's house, he noticed a motorcycle that he thought he could later levy on.
Respondent Pascubillo also stated that on January 9, 2007 he submitted a report to the court, detailing the estimated expenses and fees needed to implement the writ. But the newly appointed judge of the branch was unable to act on the proposed expenses because he still had to undergo an immersion process. Even then, Pascubillo wrote the Chief of Police of Cabucgayan, Biliran, requesting assistance for the implementation of the writ by levy.
Respondent Pascubillo added that on March 16, 2007 he submitted another report, stating that he talked to defendant Imelda Brecio and told her of his intent to levy on their motorcycle but she begged him not to, promising that she would initially deposit P25,000.00 that evening for remittance to complainant Tan. This did not, however, happen.[2]
Replying to respondent Pascubillo, complainant Tan said he gave the sheriff a list of the defendant's properties, yet he would levy only on her motorcycle. And, when he had a chance, Pascubillo did not seize the motorcycle. Further the latter did not furnish Tan with a copy of the sheriff s report.[3]
After investigation, on May 16, 2008 the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its report finding respondent Pascubillo remiss in his duties. The RTC issued the writ of execution on March 29, 2006 yet he sent his demand letter to the defendant only on July 6, 2006, more than two months later. He also did not make the required periodic report as he submitted only two sheriffs return dated January 9, 2007 and March 16, 2007. And he did not furnish complainant Tan any of these. [4] The OCA recommended the imposition of a fine of P10,000.00 on Pascubillo with a stem warning against a repetition of the same offense.[5]
On August 4, 2008 the Court required the parties to inform it whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. Only complainant Tan responded in the affirmative. Respondent Pascubillo wrote, on the other hand, that he had done all he could to execute the judgment in the case, even spending his own funds. He apologized that he had committed some mistakes and infractions in the process.[6]
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA. It finds respondent Pascubillo guilty of dereliction of his duty as a sheriff for failing (1) to execute the writ within 30 days from his receipt of it; (2) to submit his report of service within the same period; (3) to make periodic reports to the trial court until the judgment was fully satisfied; and (4) to furnish the parties with copies of the reports.
Respondent Pascubillo should have immediately levied on the properties of the defendant after 10 days following the latter's receipt of the notice to pay. Instead, succumbing to defendant's request and promise to later make a down payment on her liability, he did not proceed to levy on her motorcycle.
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires the sheriff to render a report on the action he had taken on a writ of execution within 30 days from its receipt and every 30 days after until the judgment is fully satisfied. He must also furnish the parties copies of his reports. Here, the record shows that respondent Pascubillo did not comply with this requirement. All that he submitted from the time of the issuance of the writ of execution on March 29, 2006 up to the filing of the complaint against him on March 22, 2007 were the reports of January 9 and March 16, 2007.
The sheriffs submission of the return and periodic reports is a duty that he must not take lightly. They serve to update the court as to the status of the execution and to give it an idea as to why the judgment had not been satisfied. They also provide insights as to how efficient court processes are after judgment had become executory. The overall purpose of the requirement is to ensure speedy execution of decisions.[7]
This Court finds Sheriff Pascubillo, Jr. administratively liable for simple neglect of duty, which is defined under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[8] as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is classified as a less grave offense which carries the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[9] Considering that this is respondent's first administrative offense, this Court adopts the recommended penalty of the OCA.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Modesto P. Pascubillo, Jr. guilty of simple neglect of duty and FINES him Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S-O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 16th day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Courts
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p.1.
[2] Id. at 1-2.
[3] Id at 2.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 3.
[6] Id. at 56.
[7] Patawaran v. Nepomuceno, A.M. No. P-02-1655, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 265, 277.
[8] Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (See Aranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, A.M. No.P-04-1889, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 162,175).
[9] Sy v. Binasing, A.M. No. P-06-2213, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 180, 183; De Leon-Dela Cruz v.Recacho, A.M. No. P-06-2122, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 622, 631; A.M. No. P-04-1907, July 3, 2007, 526 SCRA 272, 278; Jacinto v. Castro,Tiu v. Dela Cruz, AM. No. P-06-2288, June 15, 2007, 524 SCRA 630, 640; Malsi v. Malana, Jr., A.M. No. P-07-2290, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 167, 174; and Patawaran v. Nepomuceno, supra note 7, at 278.
