March 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-10-2808 [Formerly OCA-IPI 09-3191-P] : March 28, 2011]
ROSITA B. ANGELES V. JOSE T. FLORES, JR., SHERIFF III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT AND GERARDO R. OCAMPO, SHERIFF III, BRANCH 34, BOTH OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY
A.M. No. P-10-2808 [Formerly OCA-IPI 09-3191-P] (Rosita B. Angeles v. Jose T. Flores, Jr., Sheriff III, Office of the Clerk of Court and Gerardo R. Ocampo, Sheriff III, Branch 34, both of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City).
Complainant Rosita B. Angeles (Angeles) got a judgment in her favor in an ejectment suit that she filed against the occupant of her property in Civil Case 21464 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City.[1] Although the MeTC issued a writ of execution in the case, Sheriff Jose Flores, Jr.[2] (Sheriff Flores) was unable to enforce it as he committed to do, prompting her to file a complaint against him for gross misconduct.
Angeles alleges that she met Sheriff Flores in February 2009 when she arranged with him the implementation the writ of execution that the MeTC issued to her; that Sheriff Flores asked P50,000.00 in expenses from her; that he agreed, however, to reduce this to P25,000.00; that on March 10. 2009 Angeles gave him P15,000.00 in downpayment; that on March 13. 2009, shortly before the scheduled execution, Sheriff Flores asked her for the balance of P10,000.00; that on arrival at the place, however, someone presented to them an MeTC's order[3] that held in abeyance the execution of the court's decision. Angeles asked Sheriff Flores to return her money but he refused, stating that he would just not charge him the next time. Angeles claims that Sheriff Flores tricked her into giving the money although he knew that the MeTC had deferred action on the execution of its decision.
Subsequently, Angeles put his complaint under oath and, in doing so. included in her charge Sheriff Gerardo R. Ocampo (Sheriff Ocampo). who allegedly worked in cahoots with Sheriff Flores.
In his comment, Sheriff Flores denied asking P50,000.00 from Angeles. He alleged that the MeTC appointed him special sheriff for the case;[4] that she asked him to forego with the submission of a bill of expenses as this would only cause delay; that when she asked how much was needed, he told her to prepare P12,000.00 for the wages of 25 workers,[5] P10,000.00 for two mobile cars with eight policemen, and P3,000.00 for food; and that when they were about to implement the writ, a certain Mr. Bravo showed them a court order, holding the execution in abeyance. Sheriff Flores denied prior knowledge of the order. He told Angeles that they still had to pay the workers and the policemen. For his part, Sheriff Ocampo denied having any involvement in the aborted execution.
On recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Court resolved[6] to dismiss the complaint against Sheriff Ocampo, re-docket the affidavit of Angeles as a formal administrative complaint against Sheriff Flores, and asked him if he was willing to submit the matter for resolution on the basis of the pleadings already filed. He replied in the affirmative.[7]
The Issue Presented
The issue presented in this case is whether or not Sheriff Flores improperly demanded and received the P25,000.00 from complainant Angeles as to make him administratively liable in connection with his implementation of the writ of execution in her case.
The Court's Ruling
The OCA recommends that Sheriff Flores be found guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service and meted out the penalty of suspension from office without pay for six months pursuant to Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. 04-4-04-SC.[8]
We adopt OCA's recommendation.
Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of the Court, requires the sheriff to submit an estimate of expenses for implementing a court order, which estimate the court must approve. The interested party is then to deposit the approved amount to the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the money to the sheriff assigned. The latter is then to make a return which would include a liquidation report that needs court's approval.
It is noteworthy that the rules do not allow the sheriff who will implement the writ of execution to transact the matter of expenses directly with party interested in such execution. This preserves the integrity of the court's sheriffs who are at the front-line of the country's justice system; if court sheriffs were to lose the trust reposed in them, they would diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[9]
Here, admittedly. Sheriff Flores did not prepare and submit for court approval an estimate of his expected expenses in executing the court's decision. He instead took P25,000.00 directly from Angeles for the implementation of the writ,[10] in direct contravention of the rules.
Angeles supposed insistence that Sheriff Mores forego with the submission of a bill of expenses would not spare him from liability since he cannot waive what the rules required. For one thing, the submission if an estimate of expenses is not a right that litigants or of sheriffs can waive. Rather, the making of such an estimate is an obligation that neither of them can ignore. The rules on sheriff expenses are clear-cut and do not give allowance to procedural shortcuts.[11]
The Court has held that a violation of Section 10 (formerly, Section 9), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, constitutes not only grave misconduct but also dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[12]
Under Rule IV, Section 52(B)(4) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a violation of Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, is subject to the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months in case of a first offense while grave misconduct and dishonesty are considered as grave offense which are punishable by dismissal on a first offense[13] while conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, also a grave offense, carries with it a penalty of six months and one day suspension to one year.[14]
Rule IV, Section 55 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides that when the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
But certain facts mitigate Sheriff Flores' liability. When he issued a receipt to Angeles for the P25,000.00 he received, he showed that he acted in good faith and that the money was to be spent solely for the implementation of the writ of execution and nothing more. Also, the Court must consider that this was Sheriff Flores' first offense.[15]
Considering the attendance in his case of mitigating circumstances, the extreme penalty of dismissal is unwarranted.[16] A suspension of six months without pay, as recommended by the OCA, would be fair.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS Sheriff Jose T. Flores, Jr. of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, GUILTY of violating Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, gross misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service. The Court SUSPENDS him from office for six months without pay.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
�
[1] Branch 34.[2] In some part of the records, he is referred to as Sheriff Joselito Flores III.
[3] Dated November 6, 2008.
[4] Order dated February 12, 2008.
[5] To be paid at P500.00 each.
[6] Notice dated July 7, 2010.
[7] Manifestation dated August 20, 2010.
[8] Sec. 10. Sheriffs, Process Servers and other persons serving processes:
x x x x
With regard to sheriff's expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards' fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses 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-officio 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. The liquidation shall be approved by the court. 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 sheriffs expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor. (Emphasis supplied)
[9] Garcia v. Montejar, A.M. No. P-10-2860. October 20, 2010.
[10] Records, p. 19.
[11] Garcia v. Monfejar, supra note 9.
[12] Cebrian v. Monteroso, A.M. No. P-08-2461, April 23, 2008.
[13] Rule IV, Section 55(A)(1) and (3) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[14] Rule IV, Section 53(A)(20) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
[15] See Ramos v. Ragot, A.M. No. P-09-2600, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 14.
[16] See Rule IV, Section 54. x x x
�When applicable, the imposition of the penalty may be made in accordance with the manner provided herein below:
a. The minimum of the penalty shall be imposed where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present.
b. The medium of the penalty shall be imposed where no mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present.
c. The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present.
d. Where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, paragraph [a] shall be applied where there are more mitigating circumstances present; paragraph [b] shall be applied when the circumstances equally offset each other; and paragraph [c] shall be applied when there are more aggravating circumstances.
