ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1489-P. August 23, 2006]

CARLOS G. SALDUA v. REYNALDO A. PASCUAL, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 64, MAKATI CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 23, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1489-P (Carlos G. Saldua v. Reynaldo A. Pascual, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City)

The instant administrative matter has its roots in the Complaint-Affidavit ^[1] cralaw filed by Carlos G. Saldua relative to Civil Case No. 99-2069 entitled "Brenda Redor, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines." The facts as culled from the records are as follows:

On March 12, 2002, the RTC of Makati, Branch 64, presided by Judge Delia H. Panganiban, issued a writ of execution in the said case, directing respondent Sheriff Reynaldo A. Pascual to fully implement the court's previous Order dated May 4, 2000, which granted the monetary claims of the plaintiffs therein. The bank filed a Motion to Quash, which the RTC denied in an Order dated May 29, 2002 on the ground that the "Court of Appeals had not enjoined [it] from executing the May 4, 2000 Order." In the said Order, the respondent Sheriff was again reminded to fully implement the Writ of Execution dated March 12, 2002.

On August 12, 2002, respondent proceeded to the Union Bank branch along Congressional Avenue, Quezon City, to serve the Notice of Garnishment. The bank later filed a Motion to Lift Garnishment, which the RTC denied. Pursuant to the writ of execution earlier issued, respondent served upon the bank a Notice of Levy Upon Personal Properties about two months later.

The complainant alleges that respondent acted in an "overzealous" manner in serving the Notice of Garnishment on October 8, 2002. The complainant claims that respondent even bragged to the branch manager of the bank that "with a court order, he [respondent] could take the contents of the vault." Complainant insists that respondent should not have proceeded with the garnishment, since the case had been elevated to the CA on the issue of the correct amount to be garnished; thus, given this development, the RTC had lost jurisdiction over the case.

On July 7, 2003, the Court issued a Resolution referring the matter to then Executive Judge Sixto Marella, Jr., RTC, Makati City (now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals), for report and recommendation.

After due hearing, the then Executive Judge submitted his Report dated October 25, 2005 with the following evaluation and recommendation:

The above-established facts show that respondent sheriff did not immediately implement the Writ of Execution dated [M]arch 12, 2002. The writ was served after the Motion to Quash of Union Bank has been resolved by the Court, reiterating its directive to the respondent sheriff to implement said writ.

Moreover, records show that the alleged overzealousness in the implementation of the writ by respondent sheriff was not clearly proven. The testimony of Myrabelle J. Mendoza failed to show that respondent sheriff was arrogant and over eager to implement the writ of execution. The "sensing" that respondent will go to the tellers' cages and vault of the bank to get cash therefrom is mere conjecture on the part of Ms. Mendoza. The fact remains that respondent did not take any property from complainant bank the day he served the subject writ. Instead, respondent gave the bank five (5) to ten (10) days to comply with the mandate of the writ of execution [Exhibit F, Nos. 13 & 15].

The rule is that when writs of execution are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate [Aquino v. Lavadia, 365 SCRA 441].

Therefore, absent any evidence that respondent acted with ill will or malice, the charges against him that he was overzealous and arrogant in implementing the writ of execution is no more than suspicion and speculation that should not be entertained.

On the charge of over levy, this Office finds the same to be judicial in nature. To rule upon the proper amount to be garnished and whether the amount given by Union Bank and Equitable PCI Bank constitutes full satisfaction would be to pass upon the merits of the case.

RECOMMENDATION

Dismissal of the complaint is respectfully recommended.

In its Report dated June 19, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator echoed the findings and recommendations of Justice Marella, as follows:

Respondent Sheriff Pascual was acting on the strength of a writ of execution issued by Judge Panganiban when he proceeded to the Union Bank office in Quezon City to serve the Notice of Garnishment. It is a hornbook doctrine that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it in accordance with its mandate (Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia [297 SCRA 354]).

The argument of the complainant that Sheriff Pascual should have desisted from serving the notice of garnishment, as the issue on the correct amount to be garnished is already pending with the Court of Appeals, has no bearing in the instant case. An administrative proceeding is not the proper venue to pass judgment on a matter that is clearly judicial in character.

To reiterate, a sheriff's functions are purely ministerial. His primordial concern is to implement a writ placed in his hands and not challenge the wisdom behind its issuance.

In the case of Mamanteo v. Magumun (311 SCRA 259), the Court held that a "sheriff's prerogative does not give him the liberty to determine who among the parties is entitled to the possession of the attached property, much less does he have any discretion to decide which agency has primary jurisdiction over the matter at hand."

PREMISES CONSIDERED, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that the instant administrative case against Sheriff Reynaldo A. Pascual of the RTC (Branch 64), Makati City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court agrees with these findings and recommendations.

It must be stressed that the duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. ^[2] cralaw As a ministerial officer, a sheriff performs the duties of the office in the context of a given set of facts in a prescribed manner, and without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. ^[3] cralaw The order of the court must be executed strictly to the letter, leaving the sheriff with no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. ^[4] cralaw This is so because final judgments of the courts become empty victories for the prevailing parties if not immediately enforced. ^[5] cralaw In the instant case, respondent Sheriff was merely performing his ministerial duty to implement the Writ of Execution issued by the RTC.

Moreover, the burden of substantiating the charges in administrative proceeding against court employees falls on the complainant, who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

The Court thus resolves to DISMISS the charges against Sheriff Reynaldo A. Pascual for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 1-5.

^[2] cralaw Duenas v. Mandi, G.R. No. L-65889, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 530, 543.

^[3] cralaw Sismaet v. Sabas , A.M. No. P-03-1680, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 241, 247-248.

^[4] cralaw Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505.

^[5] cralaw Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero, 412 Phil. 435, 442 (2001), citing Moya v. Bassig, 138 SCRA 49, 52-53

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011