ChanRobles Virtual law Library
<[A.M. No. P-03-1747.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
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
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
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
In another letter of
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
By 1st Tracer of
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
No comment or answer from respondent having been received, this
Court, by Resolution of
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
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).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH