January 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[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.
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 January 2011, which reads as follows:
A.M. No. P-08-2556 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPS No. 08-2821-P) - Sps. BUTCH and PATRICIA NAVARETTE, Complainants, v. LEONARDO SSNOLI" E. CALALANG, Sheriff III, MeTC, Branch 52, Caloocan City, Respondent.
This administrative matter refers to respondent Sheriff Leonardo E. Calalang's failure to enforce a writ of execution issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTc), Branch 52 of Caloocan City in Civil Case No. 98-24551, entitled "Spouses Butch and Patricia Navarette v. Spouses Julita and Wilfredo Curata," a case for collection of sum of money with damages.
In a Verified Complaint dated March 12, 2008,[1] spouses Butch and Patricia Navarette (complainants) charged Calalang with Dereliction of Duty for his failure to implement the writ of execution issued by the MeTC on October 1, 2004, in violation of Sections 9 and 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
In his Comment,[2] Calalang vehemently denied the allegations against him. He reasoned out that he enforced the subject writ on March 30, 2005, but it was returned unsatisfied. To support his claim, he presented copies of the Request for Police Assistance,[3] Minutes of the Proceedings,[4] Sheriffs Partial Report of Writ of Execution,[5] as evidence of the writ's enforcement.
On September 1, 2008, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the complaint meritorious and recommended that Calalang be suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day, considering that this was his first offense, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.[6] The OCA observed that the subject writ was only enforced five (5) months after it was issued, and that Calalang submitted only one Sheriffs Report.
On September 29, 2008, we resolved to re-docket the present complaint as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the matter on the basis of the pleadings already filed.[7]
Both parties filed their manifestations and expressed their willingness to submit the present case for resolution.[8] In addition, the complainants contested the authenticity of the documents submitted by Calalang as proof of the writ's enforcement. They asserted that the request for police assistance and the minutes of the proceedings were spurious documents fabricated by Calalang as an afterthought to avoid liability. The sheriffs partial report was also considered highly suspect; no one had received a copy of the report when it is standard procedure for the sheriff to furnish copies of this kind of report to all interested parties. The complainants likewise denied Calalang's allegation that there had already been an extrajudicial agreement between them and the defendants resulting in the satisfaction of the writ in Civil Case No. 98-24551.
Regardless of the truthfulness of the allegations and documents submitted by the respondent, the undisputed facts positively show that Calalang was not only remiss in his duty to immediately implement the subject writ; he likewise violated his duty to submit the required returns. By submitting a sheriffs report five months after the court's issuance of the writ, Calalang effectively admitted his delay. Calalang failed to satisfactorily explain why the writ was not immediately enforced as required by the Rules.
A sheriff has the duty, in the absence of instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable promptness in the implementation of the writ according to its mandate.[9] He is also required under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to make a sheriffs return to the court thirty (30) days after the issuance of the writ, and every thirty (30) days thereafter until full satisfaction of the judgment or the expiration of the effectivity of the writ.
In finding the respondent liable for simple neglect or dereliction of duty, we adopt the OCA's recommendation and impose on him the penalty of suspension. The Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service Law, particularly Section 22 of Rule XIV, classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. Since this is the respondent's first offense, we find it appropriate to impose on him the minimum period of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Leonardo E. Calalang, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 52, Caloocan City, GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY in carrying out a lawful writ of execution. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day, with the WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
(Sgd. ) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
cralaw Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[2] Id. at 17-
[3] Id. at 21.
[4] Id. at 22.
[5] Id. at 23.
[6] Id. at 24-26.
[7] Id. at 27-28.
[8] Id. at 32-33, for respondent; id. at 34-36, for complainants.
[9] Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1786, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 265, 274-275.
