Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > January 2011 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-06-2189 (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 05-2307-P) : January 17, 2011] RAQUEL PACHECO V. SHERIFF VICENTE V. SICAT, JR., RTC, BRANCH 60, ANGELES CITY :




SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-06-2189 (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 05-2307-P) : January 17, 2011]

RAQUEL PACHECO V. SHERIFF VICENTE V. SICAT, JR., RTC, BRANCH 60, ANGELES CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 January 2011 which reads as follows: 

A.M. No. P-06-2189 [Formerly OCA-IPI No. 05-2307-P] (Raquel Pacheco v. Sheriff Vicente V. Sicat, Jr., RTC, Branch 60, Angeles City).-

This administrative case concerns a sheriff who failed to take good care of the attached properties upon taking it in his custody and possession by virtue of a writ of attachment.

  The Facts and the Case 

On September 20, 2005 complainant Raquel B. Pacheco charged respondent Vicente V. Sicat, Jr., Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, of gross misconduct, abuse of authority, gross ignorance of law and duty, and evident bad faith.

Pacheco alleged that she filed an action for breach of contract against Jose Luisito Cruz in Civil Case 8236. Pending the resolution of the case, the RTC caused the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and ordered Sicat to implement the same. After attaching certain movable properties of Cruz,[1] Sicat brought some of these to his house, committing to turn them over to the court later. What he could not accommodate, he gave to Pacheco for keeping.

After the trial court rendered judgment in the case for Pacheco,[2] the latter asked Sicat the properties he had kept and promised to turn over to the court, particularly Cruz's owner-type jeep. Pacheco then learned that Sicat did not turn over the seized articles and these could no longer be found. Sicat said that his father had used certain parts of the jeep while the others had been lost. Sicat undertook to produce the items and give them to her not later than September 15, 2005 but he failed to do so, The acting branch clerk of court confirmed that the seized items had not been surrendered to the court.

Pacheco filed a complaint for violation of Republic Act 3019[3]  against Sicat before the Office of the Ombudsman but, pursuant to the ruling in Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman,[4] that office referred the case to this Court.[5] In his Comment[6] of December 7, 2005, Sicat denied the charges against him. He said that, since the courts in Angeles City did not have ample storage rooms and garages for holding seized personal items, he was just waiting for the writ of execution to be served on him so he could turn over the attached properties to the complainant after she shall have paid the storage fees. In support of his defense, Sicat presented a certification[7] from Sheriff Teofilo M. Maguddayao, Jr., that no writ of execution had been served on Sicat yet.

In her reply[8] of January 13, 2006, Pacheco pointed out that Sicat kept the seized items rather than surrender them to the Court for disposition. He could not invoke the non-service of the execution order on him since he had the duty, when he ceased to be the assigned sheriff, to turn over any seized property he held. He was thus merely buying time to replace the missing jeep. Pacheco believed that Sheriff Maguddayao issued his certification merely to accommodate Sicat. Finally, she revealed that Sicat had previously been found guilty of grave abuse of authority and bad faith in A.M. P-00-1379.[9]

On order of the Court,[10] the vice executive judge of the Angeles City RTC investigated the case. In his Resolution of January 29, 2010, the latter found Sicat guilty of simple neglect of duty and recommended his suspension for six months without pay. On ocular inspection, the jeep involved was found in a vacant lot at Cabalantian, Bacolor, Pampanga, absent its body and wheels. Sicat said that his deceased father cannibalized it for parts without his knowledge. He did not tell Pacheco about it because he wanted to restore the jeep to its original condition before returning the same. The vice executive judge concluded that Sicat failed to take good care of the jeep as was his duty after taking custody of it by virtue of the writ of attachment.

The Court agrees with the findings and adopts the investigating judge's recommendation. Sicat was clearly remiss in the performance of his duties. He exhibited credulity in his duty when he took home the seized properties for safekeeping and not report his action to the court. He cannot raise the defense that the court lacked the facility for storing the seized properties since he should have brought them for storage in a bonded warehouse as the rules require at Pacheco's expense. If the latter was unwilling to pay for storage, he should have asked the court's permission to return the properties to their owner.

The court cannot countenance Sicat's dereliction of duty since it erodes the faith and trust of the citizenry in the judiciary.[11] As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court's writs and processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.[12]

The degree of Sheriff Sicat, Jr.'s culpability makes him liable for simple neglect of duty, which is defined under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[13] as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him[14]  and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[15] It is a less grave offense which carries the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[16] Considering that this is not Sicat's first administrative case, having been previously ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00 for grave abuse of judicial authority and bad faith in A.M. P-00-1379, the penalty of suspension of six months without pay, as recommended by the investigating judge, is in order.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court orders respondent Vicente V. Sicat, Jr., Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. This is without prejudice to the right of complainant Raquel B. Pacheco to recover the value of the lost jeep from him.

SO ORDERED.  

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, p. 13.

[2] Id. at 14-43. 

[3] The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended. 

[4] 413 Phil. 717, 722 (2001).

xxx "In fine, where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties."

[5] Rollo, pp. 84-86.

[6] Id. at 88-90.

[7] Id. at 91.

[8] Id. at 94-98.

[9] Torres v. Sicat, Jr., 438 Phil. 109 (2002).

[10] Rollo, p. 6.

[11] Marinas v. Florendo, A.M. No. P-07-2304, February 12, 2009, 578 SCRA 502, 511.

[12] Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero, 412 Phil. 435, 441-442 (2001); Smith Bell and Co. v. Saur, 185 Phil. 469,472 (1980).

[13] �52.B.I. of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, August 31, 1999, amending �23 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations implementing Book V of EO 292 and other pertinent civil service laws, CSC Resolution 91- 1631, December 27, 1991, and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular 19, Series of 1999 (See Aranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, A.M. No. P-04-1889, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 162).

[14] Atty. Dajao v. Lluch, 429 Phil. 620, 626 (2002).

[15] Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 415 Phil. 713, 721 (2001).

[16] 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.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 4304 : January 24, 2011 : PEDRO NOCETE, JR., COMPLAINANT, VERSUS ATTY. LEO DIOCOS, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 193498 : January 25, 2011 - ROMEO D. LONZANIDA VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SIGRID S. RODOLFO

  • G.R. No. 188845 : January 10, 2011 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROBERTO MEJIA Y SORIANO A.K.A. "TOTONG MEJIA", APPELLANT.

  • A.M. No. P-08-2556 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2821-P), January 10, 2011 - SPS. BUTCH AND PATRICIA NAVARETTE, COMPLAINANTS VS. LEONARDO "NOLI" E. CALALANG, SHERIFF III, METC, BRANCH 52, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2044 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2209-P), January 10, 2011 - CORAZON M. TIONGCO, COMPLAINANT VS. EMERSON B. PILIPIÑA, FORMER CLERK OF COURT III, NOW SHERIFF IV, NOTARIAL SECTION, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 192940 : January 10, 2011 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. REGGIE VILLAFLOR

  • [G.R. No. 192787 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LUIS DOGILLO, JR. Y FUNDANO

  • [G.R. No. 189275 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SEVERINO CASTILLO, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 192875 : January 19, 2011] PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA), FERNANDO N. QUADRA, DANILO V. BANAAG, PHILIP E. GARCES, AMELIA P. ZAMORA, ARSENIO A. ZAMORA, MAXIMO A. PEDRO, LEONIDA G. CATALAN, PABLO L. SARMIENTO, REYNALDO L. CAMARIN, NICANOR O. ILAGAN, GONZALO MANALILI, ERLINDA VASQUEZ, ANGELITA BALOSA AND ANGELITO DE GUZMAN V. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 193194 : January 19, 2011] RAMON P. GUEVARRA, JR. V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 181824 : January 19, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ERLINDO CONTRILLON Y VILAN

  • [A.M. No. 11-1-06-RTC : January 18, 2011] RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD SALARIES OF ATTY. DOMINGO P. DE CASTRO, CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BISLIG, SURIGAO DEL SUR

  • [G.R. No. 194830 : January 18, 2011] DOROTEO M. SALAZAR, JESUS PELAYO, AND SALVADOR VILLARUEL, JR. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, BOGO, CEBU; SALVADOR S. DELA FUENTE; RECLINE S. ASENTISTA; AMELITA M. GABITO; AND RANDOLPH G. RIVERA

  • [G.R. No. 169569 : January 17, 2011] RAMON TORRES AND JESSIE BELARMINO V. SPOUSES VIHINZKY ALAMAG AND AIDA A. NGOJU

  • [G.R. No. 188125 : January 17, 2011] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS WILFREDO BETTY Y PEREZ, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184608 : January 17, 2011] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS DANN MORALES, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2189 (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 05-2307-P) : January 17, 2011] RAQUEL PACHECO V. SHERIFF VICENTE V. SICAT, JR., RTC, BRANCH 60, ANGELES CITY

  • [G.R. No. 190344 : January 12, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RICARDO ENCALLADO

  • [G.R. No. 181264, January 12, 2011] MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN AND RAUL ESQUIVEN Y ESPIRITU VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187485 : January 12, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION

  • [G.R. No. 184150, January 12, 2011] UNIROCK CORPORATION V. GERARDO GUTIERREZ AND COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G. R. No. 176389 : January 11, 2011] ANTONIO LEJANO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND G.R. NO. 176864 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2289 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2472-P] : January 10, 2011] NIEVES M, DE GUZMAN VS. ARSENIO S. VICENCIO, CLERK OF COURT IV, MTCC, OCC, CABANATUAN CITY

  • [A.C. No. 6166 : January 10, 2011] MARIA EARL BEVERLY C. CENIZA VS. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA

  • [G.R. No. 188703 : January 10, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NANET ARAZA AND GLORIA ARANETA

  • [G.R. No. 173475 : January 10, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. AMIN USMAN AND MARCELINO ELCARTE

  • [G.R. No. 175501 : January 10, 2011] MANILA WATER CO., INC. V. JOSE J. DALUMPINES, ET AL.

  • [GR. No. 193157 : January 10, 2011] NESTOR M. SEVILLENA, PETITIONER VS. HON. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AND DIONISIO N. VELASCO, JR. AND ANTONIO S. NIVAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170596 : January 10, 2011] NGO SIN SING, ET AL. VS. LI SENG GIAP AND INC., ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 143786 : January 10, 2011] SPOUSES LOURDES V. ROTAQUIO AND LEONARDO LIWANAG, ET AL. V. MAURA PEÑAMORA, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 185387 : January 10, 2011] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ULDARICO TEBAJARES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 146210 : January 10, 2011] ELY FEGALAN V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES