ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

<[A.M. No. P-03-1747. October 6, 2003]

vs. TUPAS

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 6 2003.

A.M. No. P-03-1747 (Atty. Nelson Y. Ng vs. Sheriff Wilfredo Tupas.)

RESOLUTION

In a verified complaint received in the Office of the Court Administrator on February 18, 1997, Atty. Nelson Y. Ng charged respondent, Wilfredo M. Tupas, Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of General Santos City, with dereliction of duty.

It appears that on March 6, 1995, Judge Manuel G. Garcia of Branch 45 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City issued in Civil Case No. 378-94, "Generoso Villaflores versus Engineer Jimmy V. Junco," a writ of execution addressed to the Sheriff of General Santos City directing him as follows:

NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded that of (sic) goods and chattels of Engr. Jimmy V. Junco and 'Mary Doe, doing business under the name and style of JVJ CONSTRUCTION AND STEEL FABRICATOR, defendants you cause to be made the sum of P 130,893.20 representing the principal amount plus interest at the rate of 14% per annum plus 25% of the amount recovered as attorney's fees as well as your fees for the execution and to pay the amount collected by you to GENEROSO VILLAFLORES: doing business under the name and style of GENESSON TRADING, plaintiff herein, after deducting your fees, thereafter return this writ informing it of the proceedings that had been taken thereon. Should however, sufficient personal property could not be found whereof, you are ordered that of the lands and buildings of the said defendants you cause to be made the sum mentioned above in the manner required by the Rules of Court and make return of your proceedings with this writ within 60 days from date. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

By letter of November 14, 1995 [1] cralaw addressed to the Deputy Sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of General Santos City, Atty. Ng, counsel for judgment creditor Generoso Villaflores, forwarded the Writ of Execution issued by the MeTC of Pasay City for enforcement against Engineer Jimmy V. Junco and Mary Doe, along with a check for " P 500 for. . . initial expenses." In said letter, Atty. Ng informed that Engineer Junco owns a residential and agricultural land located at Buayan, General Santos City which, he (Atty. Ng) "expected" the sheriff would levy.

By letter of January 29, 1996, [2] cralaw Atty. Ng wrote the Deputy Sheriff of the MTC of General Santos City as follows:

This is to follow -up on the status of the enforcement of execution against Engr. Jimmy Junco. Records show that you received our letter with the writ of execution and P500.00 check on November 28, 1995, copy of our letter dated November 14, 1996 together with the return card duly received by a certain W. Tupas is attached.

As per the Register of Deeds of General Santos City, Engr. Junco has a property. Kindly coordinate with the Register of Deeds to enable you to levy his property. Thereafter, set the same for public auction. Please call me up at my office, telephone no. 843-44-83 or 844-68-11 for any development.

x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As indicated in the immediately quoted letter of Atty. Ng, respondent received on November 28, 1995 his letter-request for enforcement of the writ of execution.

In another letter of June 18, 1996, Atty. Ng again wrote the Deputy Sheriff inquiring if he was able to levy the property of Engr. Junco. [3] cralaw

Still in another letter of January 14, 1997, [4] cralaw Atty. Ng wrote respondent reminding him to give him (Atty. Ng) copy of his Sheriff's Return of Service of the Writ of Execution which he had failed to do for more than a year, and asking him to give the matter his preferential attention failing which he (Atty. Ng) would be constrained to file an administrative case against him for dereliction of duty.

Atty. Ng having received no word from respondent, he filed the complaint at bar, alleging that respondent failed to discharge his duty as Sheriff and that "[h]is lax disposition and lack of vigor and enthusiasm in enforcing the writ [and] in failing to exhaust all efforts to collect is prejudicial to the public service and to [Atty. Ng's] client."

By 1st Indorsement of May 23, 1997, [5] cralaw the Court Administrator referred the complaint to respondent for comment within (10) days from receipt thereof.

By 1st Tracer of January 27, 2000, [6] cralaw the Court Administrator called respondent's attention to the 1st Indorsement of may 23, 1997 no compliance with which had been received by his office, and directed respondent to submit his Comment on the complaint within five (5) days, failing which the case would be submitted for consideration without Comment.Said 1st Tracer addressed to respondent was received on February 23, 2000. [7] cralaw

In a November 19, 2001 Report-Administrative Matter for Agenda, [8] cralaw the Office of the Court Administrator informed that no Comment to the Complaint had been received from respondent, hence, he was deemed to have waived his right to controvert 'the allegations therein. In the same Report, the Office of the Court Administrator, finding that respondent was guilty of negligence of duty, recommended that he be suspended for six months with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Acting on the Office of the Court Administrator's Report, this Court, by Resolution of February 13, 2002, [9] cralaw required respondent to file his answer to the complaint within ten days, otherwise he would be deemed to have waived the same and the case would be submitted for resolution on the basis of the complaint alone.

No comment or answer from respondent having been received, this Court, by Resolution of February 12, 2003, [10] cralaw resolved to let the filing thereof deemed WAIVED.

In the meantime, in another administrative complaint against respondent, A.M. No. P-02-1544 (formerly OCA IPI No. 99-639-P), "Ernesto Lumanta versus Wilfredo M. Tupas," this Court, by Resolution of June 26, 2003, found respondent guilty of serious misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best' interest of the service and dismissed him from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with permanent disqualification from employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Section 11, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court under which, before its amendment in 1997, respondent was mandated to make a return of service of the writ of execution, provided:

The writ of execution may be made returnable, to the clerk or judge of the court issuing it, at any time not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days after its receipt by the officer who must set forth in writing on its back the whole of his proceedings by virtue thereof, and file it with the clerk or judge to be preserved with the other papers in the case. A certified copy of the record, in the execution book kept by the clerk, of an execution by virtue of which real property has been sold, or of the officer's return thereon, shall be evidence of the contents of the originals whenever they, or any part thereof, have been lost or destroyed.

Under this rule, respondent was duty-bound to make a return of the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it within a period of not less than ten days nor more than 60 days from receipt of the writ. The Writ of Execution issued by Judge Garcia in fact directed the making of a return of service within 60 days. Respondent, however, made no such return despite the lapse of years from the time the writ should have been enforced.

That sheriffs and their deputies play a very important role in the administration of justice bears repeated emphasis:

[Sheriffs and their deputies] are the court personnel primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs originating from courts. Most importantly, they are officers of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends and it is a truism that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law. Hence, sheriffs must at all times show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties. A decision left unexecuted or delayed indefinitely due to the inefficiency, negligence, misconduct or ignorance of the law of sheriffs renders the same inutile. What is worse, the parties who are prejudiced tend to condemn the entire judicial system. [11] cralaw

Aggravating respondent's liability which betrays gross insubordination is his failure to comment on the complaint at bar, despite the chances given him by the Court Administrator and this Court.

Respondent is liable then for dereliction of duty, aggravated by gross insubordination.

Since respondent had already been dismissed from the service, however, on June 26, 2003 for another case, the case at bar has become moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the Complaint against respondent WILFREDO TUPAS, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, General Santos City is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Annex "A" to the complaint, Rollo at 4.

[2] cralaw Annex "B" to the complaint, id at 8.

[3] cralaw Annex "C" to the complaint, id. at 9.

[4] cralaw Annex "D" to the Complaint, id. at 10.

[5] cralaw Id. at 11.

[6] cralaw Id. at 12.

[7] cralaw Registry Return Receipt, Rollo at flipside of p. 12.

[8] cralaw Rollo at 13-14.

[9] cralaw Id at 15.

[10] cralaw Id at 16.

[11] cralaw Portes v. Tepace, 267 SCRA 185 at 194 (1997).


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