Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > January 2012 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-09-2716 : January 31, 2012] TERESITA GUERRERO-BOYLON v. ANICETO BOYLES, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, CEBU CITY :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 31, 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

A.M. No. P-09-2716 (TERESITA GUERRERO-BOYLON v. ANICETO BOYLES, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City). - We resolve the motion for reconsideration, filed by Aniceto Boyles (respondent), against our Decision dated October 11, 2011, dismissing him from the service. The decretal portion of our Decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find ANICETO BOYLES, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties, and hereby DISMISS him from the service. This penalty shall carry with it the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

In his motion, the respondent asks the Court to reconsider its verdict of dismissal, based on the following arguments: (1) the respondent did not commit gross neglect of duty or gross inefficiency as he only exercised extreme caution in the performance of his duties in implementing the writ of execution; (2) the administrative charges against the respondent was not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the penalty is too harsh in light of the mitigating circumstances of the respondent's length of service and being a first-time offender.

We deny the motion.

The duties of a sheriff to execute and implement writs of execution are purely ministerial. The sheriffs actions in the execution and implementation of writs are guided only by the rules and the prescribed periods set by the court. In this case, the records have clearly established the failure of the respondent to faithfully observe and comply with his duties. The records show that the respondent had been given several opportunities to meet the charge and the evidence against him, which the respondent failed to refute.

We also find no compelling reason to modify our earlier verdict of dismissal from the service. In the first place, gross neglect of duty and gross inefficiency are grave offenses. Gross neglect of duty merits the penalty of dismissal from the service even for its first commission. Gross inefficiency is punishable with suspension (for the first offense) and dismissal (for the second offense). In turn, length of service can either be a mitigating or aggravating circumstance depending on the facts of each case.^[1]  A review of jurisprudence shows that length of service is considered aggravating where the offense committed is found to be serious^[2] (i.e., the gravity of the offense) or where the length of his service helped the offender commit the offense.^[3] In this case, the respondent's 31 years of service in the Judiciary cannot be appreciated in his favor. We find that such circumstance should have given him the advantages of diligence and efficiency in performing, instead of breaching, his duties under the circumstances. Additionally, our decision to dismiss the respondent from the service also finds support with our ruling in Proserpina V. Anico v. Emerson B. Pilipina^[4] whose facts are similar to those of the present case. cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED  for lack of merit.

The Court further Resolves to NOTE the Entry of Appearance dated November 29, 2011 filed by Atty. Terence L. Fernandez of Lawrence L. Fernandez & Associates, Suite 311, 3rd Floor, A. Geson Building, D. Jakosalem Street, 6000 Cebu City, entering his appearance as counsel for respondent."

Abad and Sereno, JJ., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 593, 604.

^[2] Id. at 605, citing University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 89454, April 20, 1992, 208 SCRA 174; Yuson v. Noel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-762, October 23, 1993, 227 SCRA 1; and Concerned Employee v. Nuestro, A.M. No. P-02-1629, September 11, 2002, 388 SCRA 568. 

^[3] Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, supra note 1, at 605-606. 

^[4] A.M. No. P-11-2896, August 2, 2011.