ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[OCA IPI No. 98-447-P.November 22, 2000]

RCBC vs. NOEL V. QUILANTANG

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 22 2000.

OCA IPI No. 98-447-P(Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) v. Noel V. Quilantang, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 53, Bacolod City.)

Complainant Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) charges Noel V. Quilantang, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 53, Bacolod City, with Grave Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty, Gross Incompetence, Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and asks that he be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re�employment in the government including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Specifically the complaint alleges that respondent received P7,000.00 from the complainant purportedly for expenses in the implementation of a writ of preliminary attachment issued in Civil Case No. 98-10141 ¹ Civil Case No. 98-10141, "Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Sps. Rodrigo Legaspi, Jr. and Mary Jane Legaspi," for collection of sum of money with prayer for writ of preliminary attachment of the RTC-Br. 51, Bacolod City, but which amount was not deposited with the Clerk of Court nor ever liquidated; that contrary to what was stated in respondent's "Sheriffs Partial Return of Service" dated 5 March 1998, respondent did not take possession of the Honda Civic car registered in the name of the defendants nor attach their land covered by TCT No. 167358; that as a consequence of respondent's neglect of duty and incompetence, the defendants succeeded in transferring their land to Imelda Precion on 2 March 1998; and, that the money judgment eventually rendered in complainant's favor became a mere empty victory as said defendant Rodrigo spouses changed residence after transferring their properties and could no longer be found. ² Manifestation of complainant Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation dated 23 November 1998.

In his Answer dated 1 September 1998 respondent alleges that he faithfully complied with his duty of implementing the subject writ of preliminary attachment as evident from the Notice of Embargo dated 23 February 1998 attached as Annex "B" of his Answer; that if ever the defendants in Civil Case No. 98-10141 succeeded in transferring their property to third persons it was not his fault, rather, it was the fault of the City Registrar of Deeds for failing to annotate the Notice of Embargo duly served upon her; that he did not take possession of the Honda Civic car registered in the name of the defendants because he was informed that the car had been sold to Imelda Precion as early as 2 January 1998; and, that he did not deposit the P7,000.00 received from the complainant for expenses in the implementation of the writ of preliminary attachment because it was the usual practice among sheriffs of the RTC-Bacolod City not to do so since the money might be needed anytime as opportunities for implementation arise.

In its Reply to the foregoing comment RCBC alleged that the City Registrar of Deeds was not able to annotate the Notice of Embargo served on 24 February 1998 because the person who served the notice, a certain R. Talisa, did not leave a copy thereof for annotation. RCBC alleged that respondent Sheriff himself brought a copy of the Notice to the City Registrar of Deeds only when subject land was already transferred to a third person and the certificate of title in the name of the defendants already cancelled.

From the foregoing it is clear that certain factual matters need to be ascertained first before respondent's administrative liability, if any, could be fully and justly determined. These matters include, inter alia, accounting of the P7,000.00 received for expenses in the implementation of the writ of preliminary attachment but the expenditure of which respondent has never yet been given a chance to explain; the identity and authority of "R. Talisa" to serve the Notice of Embargo on the City Registrar of Deeds on 24 February 1998; and, the truth of the claim that respondent himself brought the Notice of Embargo to the City Registry of Deeds for annotation only when subject property was already sold, as claimed by Bacolod City Acting City Registrar of Deeds Atty. Milagros S. dela Cruz in her letter to complainant's counsel dated 27 April 1998.

ACCORDINGLY, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, is DIRECTED to conduct immediately an investigation in this case, getting his bearings from this disquisition, and thereafter SUBMIT his report and recommendation, all within sixty (60) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE