ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. No. P-01-1473.July 4, 2001]

GLORIA O. BENITEZ, vs. ACOSTA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 4 2001.

A.M. No. P-01-1473 (Gloria O. Benitez, complainant, vs. Medel P. Acosta, Sheriff IV, respondent.)

For resolution is respondent's motion seeking reconsideration of the decision of this Court, dated March 27, 2001, dismissing him from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations, on the ground of misfeasance, nonfeasance, and dereliction of duty.

Respondent claims that the penalty imposed on him is too harsh considering his 15 years of service in the judiciary and the fact that this is the first time an administrative complaint has been filed against him and it will be his family who stands to suffer from his dismissal from the service.Respondent also filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, alleging that he is being twice punished for a single act of alleged grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service because the fact that he was found guilty of the same administrative offenses by the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona and General Mariano Alvarez and ordered to pay P2,000.00 to the complainant.Respondent denied that he failed to make a return of the writ of execution on time or that he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale to the proper person as provided under Section 14 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

After due consideration of respondent's plea, the Court finds no basis for reconsidering its decision.

1. Respondent contends that the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona and General Mariano Alvarez already found him administratively liable for grave misconduct and partiality and reprimanded him and ordered him to pay P2,000.00 in damages to complainant and, therefore, he should not be found guilty again in this case.

The administrative supervision of courts and their personnel is exclusively vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court.Any other action in any other administrative case against lower court judges and their personnel is without authority.With respect to the order of the MCTC referred to by respondent, this Court already pointed out in its decision that the order was issued in connection with the motion of complainant to declare the public auction null and void for having been held in violation of law.In its order, dated July 23, 1998, the MCTC held the public auction void and, among other things, ordered respondent to pay complainant the amount of P2,000.00 in damages.The proceeding before the trial court was not an administrative disciplinary action against respondent; it cannot, therefore, be plausibly contended that respondent can no longer be dealt with administratively.

2. Nor is there merit in respondent's claim that he was denied due process because he had not been given a copy of the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator and afforded the chance to file his comment.The requirement of due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) National Appellate Board vs. Bernabe, G. R. No. 129914, May 12, 2000.See also Re: Pilferage of Supplies in the Stockroom of the Property Division, A.M. No. 99-10-03-OCA, June 16, 2000).

Respondent was duly heard.He submitted a counter-affidavit, date June 11, 1998, in which he denied the charges against him and set forth his version of the events surrounding the public auction sale conducted by him on February 16, 1998.In the same counter-affidavit, he adopted the position paper, dated May 25, 1998, prepared by Atty. Delfin M. Gruspe in the case for annulment of the public auction sale.

Nor is respondent entitled to a copy of the report and recommendation of the OCA.The report is only for the internal use of the Court (Yuseco vs. Bernad, 243 SCRA 19 (1995)).What respondent is entitled to is the decision of the Court in which the grounds for his dismissal are fully set forth.

3. Respondent contends that (1) he did not fail to comply with his duty to make a return on the writ of execution on time; (2) he turned over the proceeds of the sale to the proper person as provided under Section 39, Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) he did not simulate the minutes of the public auction.He alleges that his voluntary inhibition from further participation in the execution of the judgment against the defendants therein was one of the reasons he no longer made any periodic report to the trial court.Furthermore, he contends that contrary to the findings of the Court that he received the writ of execution on December 11, 1997, the writ of execution was actually mailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Bacoor, Cavite only on December 22, 1997, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 1467 attached as Annex "D" to his Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, and that it was assigned to him only on January 30, 1998.As the writ of execution directed him to return the same not less than 10 days nor more than 60 days after its receipt, respondent argues that he had until April 3, 1998 within which to make a return as he received a copy of the same only on January 30, 1998.He prays for leniency because he was supposedly not yet familiar at that time with the provisions of Section 14 of Rule 39, which requires the sheriff to make a report to the court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the writ.Respondent also alleges that he could not make a return of the proceedings because he received a notice of hearing on March 13, 1998 with respect to the motion filed by the defendants therein to declare the public auction null and void, directing him to appear before the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona and General Mariano Alvarez on March 30, 1998 regarding the implementation of the writ.At the hearing of March 30, 1998, he says, he made an oral report to Judge Rosario Ragasa of his proceedings on the implementation of the said writ.Based on this oral report, respondent argues that he did not fail to make his return on time.

Section 14 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that -

"The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full.If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor.Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion.The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires.The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties."

Compliance with the duties laid down under the aforequoted rule is mandatory.As the Rules and the writ of execution itself required respondent to make periodic returns of his proceedings, he cannot refuse to file the same under the guise of his supposed voluntary inhibition.Otherwise, if respondent is excused from performing a ministerial duty because of his alleged voluntary inhibition, then there would be nothing to prevent other court personnel from putting up the same excuse to avoid administrative liability.

There is no merit to respondent's contention that his oral report to Judge Ragasa was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 39.Under Section 14 of the said rule, "[t]he returns or periodic report shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties."This indicates that the return and the reports of the sheriff must be in written form.Indeed, the alleged oral report rendered by the sheriff to Judge Ragasa was not made for the purpose of complying with the Rules, but rather for the purpose of the hearing on the motion of the defendants therein to annul the auction sale.

Respondent's other contentions that he turned over the proceeds of the sale to an authorized person and that they did not simulate the sale have already been sufficiently dealt with in the decision in this case and need no longer be discussed.

4. Finally, respondent argues that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him by the Court is too harsh considering that he has served in the judiciary for 15 years and this is the first time he had been charged with an administrative offense.

This argument is likewise without merit.In the case of Coraje vs. Braceros, 301 SCRA 62 (1999), it was held that the fact that the charge against the sheriff therein was his first offense was mitigating because there were other circumstances considered in his favor, his admission of his mistakes and his willingness to learn from them, the fact that he had been a sheriff for only one year, and the incident complained of did not prejudice the judgment debtors, which indicate the lack of malice on his part.In this case, the fact that respondent had been in the service for 15 years should precisely have cautioned him on the proper conduct of his office.

On the other hand, precedents are not lacking in which the penalty of dismissal has been meted out on erring court personnel.In Custodio vs. Fulinara, 94 SCRA 808 (1979), the failure of respondent sheriff to immediately enforce a writ of execution was held to constitute neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal.In De Labaco vs. Parale, 110 SCRA 25 (1981), the respondent sheriff failed to remit to the prevailing party in a civil case the money entrusted to him or to deposit such amounts with the municipal trial court and was dismissed by the Court for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.In Neeland vs. Villanueva, 317 SCRA 652 (1999), the respondent sheriff failed to turn over the entire proceeds of the auction sale to the judgment debtor and was dismissed by this Court for gross misconduct.These cases are controlling in the one at bar.

WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are denied with finality.Panganiban, Quisumbing and Santiago, JJ., abroad on official business.Reyes, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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