February 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-10-2798 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI Nos. 06-2364-P and 02-1400-P) : February 21, 2011]
ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO V. LEONARDO L. HO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 31, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA
A.M. No. P-10-2798 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI Nos. 06-2364-P and 02-1400-P): ATTY. RAUL H. SESBRE�O v. LEONARDO L. HO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna
Atty. Raul H. Sesbreno (Sesbre�o) filed a verified complaint docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2364-P, charging respondent Leonardo L. Ho (respondent Ho), Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna with extortion, unlawful exaction, dishonesty, grave misconduct, inefficiency and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service relative to the implementation of the writs of execution in Civil Case Nos. SPL-0469 and SPL-0434. Sesbre�o alleged that respondent Ho was designaled to implement the writs of execution in the civil cases but the latter miserably failed to perform his duty. Respondent Ho purportedly demanded sums of money from Sesbre�o without prior court approval and in amounts in excess of what is provided in the Rules of Court. Respondent Ho allegedly refused to implement the writs unless sums of money were first paid to him. Sesbre�o averred that respondent Ho neglected to perform his duties when he failed to submit progress reports as to the action or actions taken in full or partial satisfaction of the writs of execution.
In his Comment,[1] respondent Ho denied the accusations. He alleged he filed a Partial Sheriff's Return on the writs of execution. He claimed he did not receive any centavo from Sesbre�o. He averred that he had been in the service for almost 23 years and had never been convicted of any crime nor penalized for dereliction of duty. His performance rating was allegedly very satisfactory.
On 16 August 2006, then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock (CA Lock) reported that there is another case pending between the parties. Docketed as OCA IPI No. 02-1400-P (Re: Raid Sesbre�o v. Leonardo I. Ho, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna), Sesbre�o charged respondent Ho with serious dereliction/neglect of duty and violation of Republic Act No. 3019 and Republic Act No. 671.3 relative to the implementation of the writs of execution in Civil Case Nos. SPL-0469, SPL-0542 and SPL-0434.[2] Thus, in the Resolution dated 18 September 2006 of the Third Division, the Court resolved to consolidate A.M. OCA IPI Nos. 02-1400-P and 06-2364-P and the same were referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna for investigation.[3]
Pending investigation of these cases, respondent Ho died. Respondent's surviving spouse Lavinia P. Ho (Lavinia) filed an application for survivor's benefits docketed as A.M. No. 13385-Ret. (Re: Application for Survivor�s Benefits under Secs. 20 and 21 [a] of RA 8291 of Ms. Lavinia P. Ho) stating that her husband had no pending criminal cases and was cleared of money and property accountabilities. However, her husband had three administrative cases pending at that time, namely, A.M. OCA 1PI Nos. 02-1400-P, 06-2364-P, and 07-2536-P. In the Resolution dated 28 September 2009 in A.M. No. 13385-Ret., the Court approved the application for survivor's benefits filed by Lavinia but held in abeyance the payment of the claim and money value of the earned leave credits pending resolution of the three administrative cases. A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2536-P was dismissed, for lack of merit, in the Resolution dated 16 December 2009.
After investigation, Investigating Judge Francisco Dizon Pa�o (Investigating Judge) submitted his Report dated 22 April 2009[4] recommending that respondent Ho be penalized with a fine of P10,000 for disregarding the rules on execution of judgment, which was tantamount to neglect or dereliction of duty. The Investigating Judge opined that it was mandatory for the sheriff to execute the judgment and make a return on the writ of execution within the period provided by the Rules of Court. The sheriff should make periodic reports with respect to partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs. The Investigating Judge found that respondent Ho was remiss in his duties and responsibilities and recommended the imposition of a fine of P10,000.
In the Resolution dated 19 October 2009, the Court resolved to refer to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) the report of the Investigating Judge for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In the Memorandum dated 2 March 2010, the OCA agreed and adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge. Considering that respondent Ho died before the OCA received the report of the Investigating Judge, the OCA recommended that the fine of P10,000 be deducted from his "retirement/death benefits."
The two administrative cases were consolidated and re-docketed as A.M. No. P-10-2798 pursuant to the Resolution dated 23 June 2010.
We agree with the findings and recommendations of both the Investigating Judge and the OCA.
Per Report of the Investigating Judge, respondent Ho admitted that he failed to execute the writ in Civil Case No. SPL-0469 because the "complainants failed to coordinate" with him. He likewise failed to execute the writ in Civil Case No. SPL-0434 because the persons who were occupying the subject property refused to vacate. He further admitted having received Setters from Sesbre�o with respect to the implementation of the writs but claimed he did not answer the letters anymore since they came successively and the language in his letters was sarcastic. He likewise admitted that he submitted only three reports for November 2001, December 2001, and January 2002 but did not submit any monthly report from February 2002 and even up to the time of the investigation.[5] Clearly, respondent Ho had been remiss in the performance of his duty as a sheriff.
Section 14, Rule 39 of the (997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides:
SEC. 14. Return of writ of execution. - The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reasons therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be fried with the court and copies thereof furnished the parties.
Section 14, Rule 39 makes it mandatory for sheriffs to execute and make a return on the writ of execution within 30 days from receipt of the writ and every 30 days thereafter until it is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. Even if the writs are unsatisfied or only partially satisfied, sheriffs must still fife the reports so that the court, as well as the litigants, may be informed of the proceedings undertaken to implement the writ. Periodic reporting also provides the court insights on the efficiency of court processes after promulgation of judgment. Over-all, the purpose of periodic reporting is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions.[6]
Time and again, we have reminded court personnel to perform their assigned tasks promptly and with great care and diligence considering the important role they play in the administration of justice. With respect to sheriffs, they are to implement writs of execution and similar processes mindful that litigations do not end merely with the promulgation of judgments. Being the final stage in the litigation process, execution of judgments ought to be carried out speedily and efficiently since judgments left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed are rendered inutile and the parties are prejudiced thereby, reflecting adversely on the entire judicial system.[7]
When writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. Their duty is purely ministerial; they are to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. Their function is not discretionary. And, good faith on their part, or lack of it, in proceedings to properly execute their mandate would be of no moment, for they are chargeable with the knowledge that being officers of the court tasked therefor, it behooves them to make due compliance.[8]
Sheriffs play an important part in the administration of justice, execution being the fruit and end of the suit. We have ruled that sheriffs have the obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their abilities. They must always hold inviolate and invigorate the tenet that a public office is a public trust. As court personnel, their conduct must be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. They must be circumspect and proper in their behavior. They must use reasonable skill and diligence in performing their official duties, especially when the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by neglect. They are ranking officers of the court entrusted with a fiduciary role. They are called upon to discharge their duties with integrity, reasonable dispatch, due care and circumspection. Anything less is unacceptable. This is because in serving the court's writs and processes and in implementing the orders of the court, sheriffs cannot afford to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the administration of justice. Sheriffs are at the grassroots of our judicial machinery and are indispensably in close contact with 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.[9]
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Leonardo L. Ho GUILTY of neglect of duty. We FINE him Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) to be deducted from the survivor's benefits, the remaining balance of which shall be released immediately to his heirs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 17-22.[2] Id. at 35-38.
[3] Id. at 39.
[4] Id. at 54-59.
[5] Id. at 56-57.
[6] Badoles-Algadon v. Zaldivar, A.M. No. P-04-1818, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 446, 457.
[7] De Leon-Dela Cruz v. Recacho, A.M. No. P-06-2122, 17 July 2007, 527 SCRA622, 627-628.
[8] Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1786 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1341-P). 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 265, 274-275.
[9] Crispin Sarmiento v. Luisito P. Mendiola, Sheriff 111, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20. Manila, A.M. No. P-07-2383, 15 December 2010; Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, supra.
