Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > June 1982 Decisions > Adm. Matter No. 2358-MJ June 29, 1982 - SALUD CLEMENTE-DE GUZMAN v. TIRSO REYES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[Adm. Matter No. 2358-MJ. June 29, 1982.]

SALUD CLEMENTE-DE GUZMAN, Complainant, v. Municipal Judge TIRSO REYES, and Deputy Sheriffs PABLO C. IRAL and ROGELIO T. AGAY, Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Complainant was one of the defendants in an ejectment suit filed with the municipal court presided by respondent Judge who after trial rendered judgment on June 20, 1979 in favor of plaintiffs. The decision, on appeal, was affirmed by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. On December 14, 1979, the CFI remanded to the municipal court the entire records of the case with the corresponding mittimus. On February 4, 1980, respondent Judge issued a writ of execution which was served on the same date but after office hours by respondent deputy sheriffs who collected the amount due on the judgment but issued a non-official receipt. An administrative complaint was filed against respondent Judge for having issued the writ of execution without previous notice to complainant of the CFI’s decision nor of the remand of the records to the municipal court; and respondent deputy sheriffs for irregularities in the enforcement of the writ.

The Supreme Court held that the writ was not issued prematurely because the transmittal of the mittimus to the court of origin is predicated upon the finality of the appellate court’s decision; that the duty to give notice of the decision as well as the receipt of the records from the appellate court does not devolve upon the respondent judge; that there is no rule or circular prohibiting the enforcement of a writ of execution on a Saturday or after office hours; and that respondent sheriff are administratively liable for the failure to issue an official receipt but the fact that they delivered the amount collected to the judgment creditor without appropriating or diverting the same, or any part thereof, to their personal use or benefit, should be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance in their favor.

Charge against respondent Judge dismissed. Respondent deputy sheriffs are admonished.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENTS; TRANSMITTAL OF MITTIMUS TO COURT OF ORIGIN PREDICATED ON FINALITY THEREOF. — After the remand of the records, together with the mittimus, respondent Judge was justified in considering the judgment of the appellate court as one that had already become final. The mittimus is the final process for carrying into effect the decision of the appellate court, and the transmittal thereof to the court of origin is predicated upon the finality of the judgment.

2. ID.; ID.; GRANT OF MOTION FOR EXECUTION, MINISTERIAL DUTY UPON FINALITY THEREOF. — It is a basic rule of procedure that the granting of a motion or execution of a final judgment is ministerial on the part of the court; and the prevailing party can have it forthwith executed as a matter of right.

3. ID.; ID.; DUTY TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE DECISION AND THE RECEIPT OF THE RECORDS OF THE CASE FROM THE APPELLATE COURT; DEVOLVES UPON THE CLERK OF COURT. — As to the complainant’s assertion that neither she nor her counsel had been notified of the decision of the court of first instance, it suffices to point out that the duty of giving such notice devolved upon the clerk of the said court. Upon the other hand, it is the duty of the clerk of the lower court to notify the parties of the receipt by him of the records of the case from the appellate court in accordance with paragraph 2, Section II of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court.

4. ID.; ID.; WRIT OF EXECUTION; TIME OF SERVICE. — The fact that respondents enforced the writ of execution after office hours requires no extensive disquisition. It needs be pointed out only that there is no rule or circular prohibiting sheriffs from enforcing a writ of execution on a Saturday or after office hours (Sycip v. Salaysay, 55 SCRA 378,381).

5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST SHERIFFS; FAILURE TO ISSUE OFFICIAL RECEIPT; DELIVERY OF AMOUNT COLLECTED TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR, AN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — For failure to issue an official receipt, respondents violated Section 113 of Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual, providing that no payment of any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment thereof. But while respondents’ culpability on this count appears indubitable, the fact that they delivered the amount collected to the judgment creditor and did not appropriate or divert the same, or any part thereof, to their personal use and benefit, should be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance in their favor.


D E C I S I O N


ESCOLIN, J.:


In her sworn statement given before the Complaints and Investigation Section of the Office of the President, Salud Clemente-de Guzman charged Municipal Judge Tirso Y. Reyes of the municipal court of Pulilan, Bulacan, with grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law for having prematurely issued a writ of execution; and deputy sheriffs of Bulacan, Pablo C. Iral and Rogelio T. Agay, for having committed irregularities in the enforcement of the said writ.

Complainant was one of the defendants in an ejectment suit instituted in the municipal court of Pulilan, presided by the respondent judge, wherein the said court, after due trial, rendered a decision dated June 20, 1979, in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

On December 14, 1979, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan remanded to the municipal court the entire records of the case, together with the corresponding mittimus 1; and on February 4, 1980, the respondent judge, on motion of the plaintiff, issued a writ of execution which respondent sheriffs enforced on the same day.

Alleging that the decision of the court of first instance had not yet become final at the time of transmittal of the records to the municipal court because her counsel had not been notified of the CFI’s decision, complainant charges respondent judge with grave abuse of authority and gross negligence of the law, for alleged premature issuance of the writ of execution.

We find no legal basis for this charge. After the remand of the records, together with the mittimus, respondent judge was justified in considering the judgment of the appellate court as one that had already become final. The mittimus is the final process for carrying into effect the decision of the appellate court, and the transmittal thereof to the court of origin is predicated upon the finality of the judgment.

It is a basic rule of procedure that the granting of a motion for execution of a final judgment is ministerial on the part of the court; and the prevailing party can have it forthwith executed as a matter of right. 2

As to the complainant’s assertion that neither she nor her counsel had been notified of the decision of the court of first instance, it suffices to point out that the duty of giving such notice devolved upon the clerk of the said court. Certainly, for the latter’s failure to perform such duty, respondent judge cannot be faulted.

Equally untenable is the contention that respondent judge, before allowing execution, should have notified the parties of the receipt by him of the records of the case from the appellate court, in accordance with paragraph 2, section 11 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court. 3 The duty prescribed by the rule cited applies only to the clerk of the court of first instance and not to the judge or clerk of the municipal or city court. 4

Thus, absent any specific rule or law which imposes upon respondent the duty to give notice of his receipt of the records from the appellate court, the charge that he acted capriciously and maliciously, or that he disregarded any well-known rule of procedure in issuing the writ of execution complained of cannot be sustained.

Now, the complaint against deputy sheriffs Pablo C. Iral and Rogelio T. Agay. Complainant specifies the gravamen of her charges as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) They enforced the writ of execution after office hours;

(2) they employed threats and intimidation in the enforcement of the writ;

(3) they collected from the complainant an amount in excess of the sum indicated in the writ of execution; and

(4) they issued a non-official receipt for the amount collected.

We find the first three counts bereft of adequate basis to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanction.

(1) The fact that the respondents enforced the writ of execution after office hours requires no extensive disquisition. It needs be pointed out only that there is no rule or circular prohibiting sheriffs from enforcing a writ of execution on a Saturday or after office hours. 5

(2) As to the charge that respondents employed threats and intimidation in the enforcement of the writ, the same was not sufficiently substantiated by complainant. Apart from the respondents’ vehement denial of the charge, there is in the records their uncontradicted averment that all they did at the time was to explain to complainant their official duties in connection with the execution of judgment and their liability under the law should they fail to comply with such duty.

(3) Complainant alleged that while the amount due under the decision in Civil Case No. 5687-M was only P1,826.00, the respondents demanded, and were paid, the sum of P1,874.39. Upon the other hand, the respondents claimed that what they received from complainant fell short of the amount due and, therefore, did not fully satisfy the judgment in question. We have painstakingly scrutinized the records, and in view of the lack of sufficient and reliable data therein to enable Us to properly determine the correct amount due under the judgment, We are constrained to likewise dismiss this charge.

(4) Respondent sheriffs, however, have admitted that for the amount collected, they issued a mere private receipt, instead of an official one. Respondents’ comment on this point reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As to the non-issuance of receipt, the undersigned respondent sheriffs beg to state that as they were in the field, without expecting that the levy on execution would be successful, they did not bring official receipts for any money or monies that may be recovered by virtue of the writ of execution. The money proceeds of the writ of execution was immediately turned over to the plaintiff in partial satisfaction of the judgment covered by the writ of execution when respondents proceeded to the house of the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

Undoubtedly, for failure to issue an official receipt, respondents violated Section 113 of Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual, providing that no payment of any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment thereof. But while respondents’ culpability on this count appears indubitable, the fact that they delivered the amount collected to the judgment creditor and did not appropriate or divert the same, or any part thereof, to their personal use and benefit, should be appreciated as an extenuating circumstance in their favor.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the charge against Judge Tirso Y. Reyes is hereby dismissed. Deputy sheriffs Pablo C. Iral and Rogelio T. Agay are hereby admonished, with warning that a repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. p. 50, records.

2. Far Eastern Assurance and Insurance Co. versus Vda. de Hernandez, 63 SCRA 256; Pamintuan versus Muñoz, 22 SCRA 1111.

3.." . .

"It shall be the duty of the clerk of the lower court to notify the parties within five days of the receipt by him of the records of a case from the appellate court."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. Section 19, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court.

5. Sycip versus Salaysay, 55 SCRA 378, 381.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






June-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. P-2357 June 19, 1982 - ROSALINDA D. MORALES v. RENATO LOTUACO, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 576

  • G.R. Nos. 38515-16 June 19, 1982 - VICENTE G. ACABAN v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 586

  • G.R. No. L-40163 June 19, 1982 - LEVITON INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-45215 June 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 599

  • G.R. No. 51047 June 19, 1982 - JOVITA GO, ET AL. v. CARIDAD A. TROCINO and COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 607

  • G.R. No. L-53971 June 19, 1982 - MARINA G. VERGARA, ET AL. v. LAUREANO OCUMEN, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. L-55513 June 19, 1982 - VIRGILIO SANCHEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    199 Phil. 617

  • G.R. No. L-57032 June 19, 1982 - CARDINAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AMADOR T. VALLEJOS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982 - RAFAEL E. MANINANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-51257 June 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO E. NISMAL

    199 Phil. 649

  • Adm. Case No. 1104 June 29, 1982 - DOMINGA PABILIN v. DOMINGO C. LAGULA

  • Adm. Case No. 1660 June 29, 1982 - TEOFISTA G. FLORES VDA. DE CHENG v. BENJAMIN O. CARLOS

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 1381, 1633, 1645 & 2042 June 29, 1982 - JESUS BANAWA v. GREGORIO B. DE JESUS

  • Adm. Matter No. 1513-MJ June 29, 1982 - BRAULIO VILLASIS v. PRISCO PABATAO

  • Adm. Matter No. 1539-MJ June 29, 1982 - MAURECIA OPUS v. VICENTE BORNIA

  • Adm. Matter No. 1665-MJ June 19, 1982 - WILMOR HADAP, ET AL. v. ABELARDO LEE

  • Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ June 29, 1982 - ESTANISLAO LAPENA, JR. v. MARTONINO MARCOS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-1974 June 29, 1982 - PABLO L. BAROLA v. VICTORIANO L. ABOGATAL

  • Adm. Matter No. P-2328 June 29, 1982 - ERNESTO P. VALENCIA v. SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. 2358-MJ June 29, 1982 - SALUD CLEMENTE-DE GUZMAN v. TIRSO REYES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 2729-CFI June 29, 1982 - GREGORIA LAGARET, ET AL. v. TAGO M. BANTUAS

  • Adm. Matter No. 2758-P June 29, 1982 - SOL M. SIPIN v. GLORIA GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-26537 June 29, 1982 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS v. HERMINIO A. ASTORGA

  • G.R. No. L-28323 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO APAT

  • G.R. No. L-28636 June 29, 1982 - LEO Y. MABUHAY v. JESUS V. SERIÑA

  • G.R. No. L-28717 June 29, 1982 - ESCOLASTICO DE GUZMAN v. NUMERIANO CUEVAS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-29077 June 29, 1982 - LOURDES MARCELO v. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31675 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33157 June 29, 1982 - BENITO H. LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33411 June 29, 1982 - NORTHERN LINES, INC. v. BENJAMIN SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35390 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. L-36925 June 29, 1982 - IN RE: JOSE ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-38318 June 29, 1982 - AURORA RAYMUNDO v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE and HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39051 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. L-39387 June 29, 1982 - PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40183 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO L. FRANCO

  • G.R. No. L-40726 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO MACATANGAY

  • G.R. No. L-41080 June 29, 1982 - JOSE ESTANISLAO v. REYNALDO P. HONRADO, STA. ANA & SONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42630 June 29, 1982 - JESUS SIERBO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42646 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO "BOY" PALAPAL

  • G.R. No. L-43888 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO MANLABAO

  • G.R. No. L-46199 June 29, 1982 - DOMINGO O. BAUTISTA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49623 June 29, 1982 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51641 June 29, 1982 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51767 June 29, 1982 - LETICIA CO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-53721 June 29, 1982 - PAN-PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55029 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO GAMET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55289 June 29, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-55418-19 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL M. MAMOGAY

  • G.R. Nos. L-55485-86 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO BITUIN

  • G.R. No. L-57102 June 29, 1982 - HILARIO GAMIAO, ET AL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57597, 57598 & 57599 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR E. ESPAÑOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58319 June 29, 1982 - PATRICIA PACIENTE v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58341 June 29, 1982 - PEPSI-COLA LABOR UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60326 June 29, 1982 - IN RE: RAMON A. BERNAL v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60685 June 29, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO MINA, ET AL.