ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-05-2037.� July 18, 2005]
DELANTAR vs. RAMOS
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2005.
A.M. No. P-05-2037 (Rolando C. Delantar vs. William Jose R. Ramos, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 166.)
The instant administrative matter refers to the charge of abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a government employee against William Jose R. Ramos, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City. The charges are contained in the Affidavit-Complaint dated May 13, 2004 filed by Rolando C. Delantar, the president of RCD Realty Corporation.
The complainant and the said corporation were the defendants in
Civil Case No. 63950, then pending before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 166. On
February 5, 2004, the trial court issued a Writ of Execution for the
enforcement of a money judgment against the said defendants. The complainant
narrated that the respondent came to his office on March 29, 2004, and made the
assurance that he was authorized to receive money in payment of the money
judgment in question. The complainant insisted in paying the prevailing party
Fernando Nulud directly, but he was further assured that the respondent was
duly authorized to accept the payment, and that Nulud's presence was no longer
necessary. The complainant further claimed that the respondent made
representations that he was authorized to enter into a compromise, and after
"negotiation," was promised that the payment of P80,000.00
would fully settle the judgment.
The respondent then signed a receipt
[1]
cralaw of even date as
"evidence that he indeed [was] duly authorized to accept payment in full
satisfaction of the judgment." Thereafter, the respondent returned, this
time with a Notice
[2]
cralaw
from the court, dated April 22, 2004, stating that the payment made by
the complainant represented only partial satisfaction of the writ of execution
and directing the respondent to fully implement the writ. The total amount of
the complainant's obligation was, likewise, computed therein as P186,392.00,
thus leaving a balance of P106,392.00.
The complainant insisted that were it not for the respondent's
representations of authority to accept payment and waive further action, he
would not have parted with the P80,000.00.
In his Comment [3] cralaw dated June 11, 2004, the respondent sheriff alleged that the filing of the complaint against him was premature, considering that there was a pending Motion to Quash Notice [4] cralaw dated May 11, 2004 filed by the complainant through counsel. The respondent prayed that the complaint against him be dismissed as it was only filed to harass him.
In a Letter
[5]
cralaw
dated July 22, 2004, the complainant reiterated his interest in pursuing his
complaint against the respondent. He further argued that the said motion is not
a prejudicial question because the administrative complaint is an independent
matter. In another Letter
[6]
cralaw
dated August 18, 2004, the complainant narrated that the court denied his
motion in an Order
[7]
cralaw
dated July 27, 2004. He then filed a motion for reconsideration of the
order, and the respondent, with undue haste and without awaiting the resolution
thereof, filed a Manifestation dated August 4, 2004; this gave rise to the
trial court's issuance of an Order directing Allied Bank, Sta. Rosa, Laguna
Branch, to release the P106,392.00 earlier garnished. According to the
complainant, this was proof of his suspicion that the respondent sheriff was
really biased, partial and abusive of his authority.
Upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Court resolved to refer the matter to Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor, RTC of Pasig City, Branch 166. [8] cralaw
The complainant did not appear to testify during the hearings. He sent the accounting supervisor of RCD Realty Corporation in his stead, who established the presence of the respondent in the company premises on March 29, 2004.
After the hearings, the Executive Judge submitted his Report dated June 6, 2005 with the following findings and recommendation:
In his testimony, Respondent Sheriff does not deny that he went to
Complainant's office and received the amount of P80,000.00 but he
claimed that he received it for Fernando Nulud, the Plaintiff in Civil Case No.
63950. Respondent Sheriff claimed that he only went to the Office of
Complainant Delantar to implement the Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 63950
and that he received the P80,000.00 as partial satisfaction of the
amount being claimed on behalf of Fernando Nulud, Plaintiff in Civil Case No.
63950. Respondent Sheriff did not explain why he signed the Receipt dated March
29, 2004 (Exhibit "A"), which acknowledged that the amount of P80,000.00
represented full and final satisfaction of the claim per Order of Branch 166,
RTC, Pasig City, under Civil Case No. 63950. The Check Voucher, dated 29 March
2004, likewise, specified that the amount was for the full and final
satisfaction of William Ramos['s] claim. Respondent Sheriff, in his testimony,
did not explain why he signed the Receipt (Exhibit "A") and the Check
Voucher (Exhibit "B"). Neither did he give any reason why he signed
the Receipt (Exhibit "A") and the check voucher (Exhibit
"B") despite reference to a full and final satisfaction of the claim.
The Check Voucher showed that the payee of the check was Fernando
Nulud and it appears that Respondent Sheriff gave the check to the payee, who
encashed it. Thus, Respondent Sheriff received the P80,000.00 for and in
behalf of the Plaintiff in Civil Case No. 63950. However, Respondent Sheriff
failed to explain why he signed the Receipt (Exhibit "A") and the
Check Voucher (Exhibit "B") although they referred to the payment as
full and final satisfaction of the claim. It would be consistent with human
behavior and belief that the person/persons who prepared the Receipt (Exhibit
"A") and the Check Voucher (Exhibit "B") would base the
particulars/wordings in those documents on the circumstances prevailing. Thus,
the appearance of the words full and final satisfaction in the Receipt (Exhibit
"A") and the Check Voucher (Exhibit "B") must have been
based on what was discussed by the parties concerned. While there may not have
been anything irregular in Respondent Sheriff's act of receiving the P80,000.00,
for and in behalf of Plaintiff Nulud in Civil Case No. 63950, the testimony of
Complainant's witness, Cristopher C. Bo, in regard to his preparation of the
Receipt (Exhibit "A"); what was acknowledged therein; and that
Respondent Sheriff signed it, cannot be discounted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Respectfully submitting to the Honorable Court the recommendation that RESPONDENT SHERIFF WILLIAM JOSE R. RAMOS be WARNED to be more careful in the performance of his official duties.
The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge, and perforce exonerates the respondent of the charges. It must be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint. [9] cralaw In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. [10] cralaw Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on; charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. [11] cralaw
Indeed, the complainant should have testified to prove his allegation that the respondent made false assurances of having been authorized to waive the obligation in favor of the prevailing party. Having failed to do so, the complainant, likewise, failed to substantiate the charges of grave abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a sheriff against the respondent. As found by the OCA, there is nothing irregular in delivering payment to a sheriff in satisfaction of a money judgment; that the prevailing party is not present at the time of the implementation of the writ of execution is of no moment, as this procedure is authorized under Section 9(a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 9. Execution for judgments for money, how enforced. -
(a) Immediate payment on demand. - The officer shall enforce the execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the judgment debt under proper receipt directed to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amounts within the same day to the clerk of the court that issued the writ.
If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not present to receive the payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the clerk who issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable, deposit said amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest government depositary bank of the Regional Trial Court of the locality.
However, as found by the Executive Judge, the respondent failed to explain why he signed the receipt and the check voucher despite the way it was worded:
Paid to Deputy Sheriff WILLIAM R. RAMOS the
amount of EIGHTY THOUSAND (P80,000.00) Pesos, Allied Bank, Check No.
0001292236, dated March 29, 2004, for the account of Fernando Nulud,
representing full and final satisfaction of his claim as per Order of the RTC,
Branch 166, Pasig City, under Civil Case No. 63950.
Accordingly, Fernando Nulud hereby waives all his claims against RCD Realty Corporation. [12] cralaw
The respondent ought to have known that he had no authority to
waive the judgment obligee's claim against the judgment obligor. Moreover, he
should have realized that the check for P80,000.00 issued by the
complainant would be insufficient to satisfy the obligation, as the dispositive
portion of the decision sought to be implemented would show, to wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P63,100.00,
plus interest at the legal rate from November 10, 1993, until the amount is
fully paid; and,
2. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P20,000.00
as attorney's fees, plus the cost of the suit.
[13]
cralaw
It must be stressed that it is the duty of all court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, to maintain the Court's good name and standing as a temple of justice. [14] cralaw Thus, the conduct of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. [15] cralaw
Sheriffs, in particular, play an important role in the administration of justice; as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them. [16] cralaw They should, at all times, show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties as officers of the court. [17] cralaw Being at the grass roots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs are in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court. [18] cralaw
WHEREFORE, respondent William Jose R. Ramos is REMINDED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties, and is STERNLY WARNED that the repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p.6.
[2] cralaw Id. at 8.
[3] cralaw Id.at 11.
[4] cralaw Id. at 12-13.
[5] cralaw Rollo, p. 17.
[6] cralaw Id. at 18.
[7] cralaw Exhibits "4" to "4-A."
[8] cralaw Rollo, p. 33.
[9] cralaw Cortes v. Agcaoili, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1414, 20 August 1998, 294 SCRA 423.
[10] cralaw Sierra v. Tiamson, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1847, 21 July 2004, 434 SCRA 560.
[11] cralaw Lambino v. Judge De Vera, 341 Phil. 62 (1997).
[12] cralaw Rollo, p. 14.
[13] cralaw Rollo, p. 4.
[14] cralaw Andal v. Tonga, A.M. No. P-02-1581, 28 October 2003, 414 SCRA 524.
[15] cralaw Madrid v. Quebral, A.M. Nos.P-03-1744 and P-03-1745, 7 October 2003, 413 SCRA 1.
[16] cralaw Ignacio v. Payumo, A.M. No. P-00-1396, 24 October 2000, 344 SCRA 169.
[17] cralaw Andal v. Tonga, A.M.No. P-02-1581, 28 October 2003, 414 SCRA 524.
[18] cralaw Cabanatan v. Molina, A.M. No. P-01-1520, 21 November 2001, 370 SCRA 16.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
