ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M No. P-96-1204. March 27, 2000
MILA MARTINEZ, complainant, vs. CLERK OF COURTANDER RIMANDO and SHERIFF ABRAHAM ALMAZAN, both of the Office of the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Olongapo City, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
DE LEON, JR., J.:
Before us is a complaint filed by Mila Martinez, as attorney-in-fact of her sister, Norma Idanan-Oca, against respondents Alexander Rimando and Abraham Almazan, Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Olongapo City, Branch 4, and Deputy Sheriff, respectively, charging them with Grave Misconduct relative to the enforcement of an alias writ of execution issued by the said court in Civil Case No. 2748 entitled Triangle Ace Corporation vs. Norma Oca and her husband, Mr. Oca, for Collection of Sum of Money.
The pertinent facts, as culled from the testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, are as follows:
On March 25, 1994, an Alias Writ of Execution[1 was issued by Judge Cesar Bada of MTCC, Branch 4, Olongapo City, in Civil Case No. 2748 for the satisfaction of the judgment rendered therein.
On April 21, 1994, respondent Deputy Sheriff Almazan issued a Notice of Levy2 on a real property of Norma Idanan-Oca and her husband, located at No. 18 National Road, Barrio Barretto, Olongapo City. A Notice of Sheriffs Sale[3 on the said levied property was made by Sheriff Almazan on the same day, informing the public that the said parcel of land shall be sold at public auction on May 27, 1994 between 9:00 oclock A.M. to 5:00 oclock P.M.
On May 27, 1994,
the day of the auction sale, a certain Romeo Idanan went to the office of the
Clerk of Court of MTCC Olongapo City and talked to respondent Alexander Rimando
and Antonio Tulio, Clerk of Court and Assistant Clerk of Court,
respectively.
Upon their advice, Romeo
paid the amount of P22,000.00 representing the judgment debt and costs
of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 2748 so that the auction sale would
no longer push through.
Tulio, signing
in behalf of respondent Rimando, issued a receipt[4 to Romeo as evidence of the payment
made by him.
When Romeo left the office
of respondent Rimando at 5:00 oclock P.M.,
the auction sale has not yet taken place.
The auction
sale, however, proceeded despite the notice given to respondent Deputy Sheriff
Almazan that the judgment debt and the costs of the writ of execution had been
paid by Romeo.
Almazan said that he
proceeded with the auction sale since he did not personally receive the money.5 Respondent Almazan issued a
Certificate of Sale[6 in favor of the highest bidder,
Carmen Cao, who is connected with Triangle Ace Corporation, and who submitted a
bid in the amount of P62,400.
When Atty. Ocampo, the lawyer of the judgment creditor, computed the
amount of the indebtedness, the total indebtedness amounted only to P37,000.00,
hence, there was an excess of P25,400.00. Almazan kept the P25,400.00 but deposited it with the
Office of the Clerk of Court only on November 19, 1996 when the present administrative
complaint was being investigated.
On October 21,
1994, respondent Rimando called up Romeo and asked him to pay P4,000.00,
allegedly for publication.
Romeo paid
accordingly.
On the said occasion,
Rimando was never informed that the property had been awarded to Cao as highest
bidder, during the auction sale held last May 27, 1994.
On July 21, 1995, a Final Bill of Sale[7 was issued by respondent Deputy Sheriff Almazan. This was approved by respondent Rimando.
The petitioners only came to know about the sale sometime in the latter part of November 1995, when Mila Martinez who was then following up some documents in the Office of the City Assessor of Olongapo City was informed by a staff member of the City Assessors office that the property of her sister had been transferred in the name of Cao. Upon further verification from the records of the City Assessors Office, it was confirmed that Normas property is indeed now registered in the name of Cao. Mila Martinez then tried to see respondent Rimando a number of times but he could not be located.
On January 4, 1996, Mila Martinez filed the present administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator. The case was assigned to Judge Alicia L. Santos of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 73 for investigation, report and recommendation pursuant to the resolution of this Court dated June 30, 1997.
Respondent
Almazan denied the allegations of the petitioner against him.
He testified that Tulio notified him that
the representative of Norma Idanan-Oca has already paid her indebtedness in the
amount of P22,000.00.
He asked
for the money so that he could pay the plaintiff, but Tulio did not say
anything and instead, walked away.
Almazan was surprised that nobody called him when somebody was paying
the P22,000.00.
He claimed that
he was ignored as the Deputy Sheriff-in-Charge of the enforcement of the alias
writ of execution.
And since he did not
receive the money, he did not suspend the auction sale.
He claimed that he did not believe the
letter allegedly signed by Tulio as well as the receipt shown to him as
evidence of payment.
Respondent
Rimando who testified in his behalf claimed that he was not notified of the
scheduled auction sale on May 27, 1994.
According to him, after giving instructions to Tulio that day, he left
his office and did not know what happened afterwards. He talked to respondent
Almazan who informed him that the auction sale pushed through because the sum
of P22,000.00 was not delivered to him and that the amount of the
judgment obligation was P32,000.00,
and hence, short of P6,000.00 to fully cover the obligation.
He further testified that the P22,000.00
was not directly given to him by Tulio inasmuch as Tulio gave it to one of his staffs
who counted the money.
He said that he
was not able to deposit the money with the RTC Clerk of Court, as ordered,
because he received a telegram informing him that his uncle was seriously sick
and in a 50-50 condition.[8 He did not inform Idanan anymore
that the auction sale proceeded because he already gave full authority to Tulio
to take charge in this particular case.
According to him, he inadvertently signed the Final Bill of Sale because
he was in a hurry to attend the implementation of another writ of execution.
From the evidence adduced by the parties, it appears that the respondents are guilty of gross inefficiency and incompetence.
Respondent Rimando admitted that he inadvertently signed the Final Bill of Sale notwithstanding the numerous irregularities attending the auction sale because he was allegedly in a hurry at the time, to help in the enforcement of another writ of execution. If he was indeed in a hurry to go to another place to help in the enforcement of another writ of execution, then he should have postponed the signing of the Final Bill of Sale so that he could have more time to scrutinize its contents before signing the said document. Such carelessness of respondent Rimando in the performance of official duties should not be tolerated.
Respondent Rimando tried to avoid the responsibility for the auction sale by claiming that he was not furnished a copy of the Alias Writ of Execution issued by Judge Cesar V. Bada. His claim, however, was belied by Erlinda Dichoso, a clerk at the office of the Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Olongapo City who testified that she received a copy of said alias writ of execution.[9 This fact is confirmed by the stamp mark on the alias writ showing that a copy of said alias writ was received by the Office of the Clerk of Court on April 29, 1994.10 Rimando also offered no satisfactory explanation as to why the alias writ of execution was never recorded in the Execution Book or why it was never brought to his attention.
Another fact which
militates against Rimando is the matter of the P4,000.00 paid to him by
Romeo for the cost of publication.
According to Rimando, it was Almazan who informed him that the auction
sale pushed through and that the cost of publication was P4,000.00.
He then contacted Romeo Idanan and asked him
to pay an additional P4,000.00.[11 The Investigating Judge correctly
observed that the collection of this additional amount is without basis.
The auction sale pushed through, and the
amount of the highest or winning bid was even in excess of P25,400.00
over the amount of the judgment debt and
more than enough to cover the alleged costs of publication.
Lastly,
respondent Rimando kept the said amount of P22,000.00 and P4,000.00
for a period of over two (2) years.
He
deposited that money with the Office of the Clerk of Court only when he was
ordered by the Investigating Judge to do so.12 Even though it was not clearly
shown that he used this money for personal purposes, this raised serious doubt
as to his integrity.
As an officer of
the court, he should have conducted himself in a manner that would not have
cast any suspicion or doubt on his integrity.
As to respondent
Almazan, his offense consists of varying the terms of the Alias Writ of
Execution.
The writ specifically stated
that the judgment debt is P21,000.00 representing the indebtedness,
costs and fees for the service of the execution. Yet, when Almazan issued the Notice of Sheriffs Sale on Levied
Property, he stated therein that the amount to be recovered is P21,000.00,
excluding attorneys fees, costs, sheriffs fees and expenses.
We agree with the finding of the
Investigating Judge that:
As shown, the Alias Writ of Execution differed substantially from the Notice of the Sheriffs Sale. The Alias Writ included in the P21,000.00 judgment award, costs and the amount of your Sheriffs fees for the service of the execution. While the Notice of Sheriffs Sale excluded attorneys fees, costs, sheriffs fees and expenses. This glaring disregard made by Sheriff Almazan resulted to different interpretation on how much should be collected from defendant Idanan. Not only that respondent Abraham Almazan did not rely on the dispositive portion of the Alias Writ of Execution, he also relied on the computation of the judgment creditors counsel, thus bungled the whole situation.13
Respondent
Sheriff Almazans argument that he did not suspend the auction sale because he
was not shown the money is devoid of merit since he received a letter from
Rimando, although signed by Tulio, informing him of the fact of payment of P22,000.00
by the judgment debtor.
By virtue of
that letter from his superior, he should have suspended the auction sale and
informed the court that the amount of P22,000.00 has been deposited as
payment in the Office of the Clerk of Court.
This he failed to do.
Finally,
respondent Sheriff Almazan kept the amount of P25,400.00 (representing
the excess over the amount of the judgment) in his house for two (2) years, and
deposited it only with the Office of the Clerk of Court on November 19, 1996.14 As stated earlier, in
respondent
Rimandos case, this long
delay in depositing the money is highly suspicious. It should be stressed that the conduct and behavior of all persons
connected with a public office charged with the dispensation of justice are
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.
Their conduct, at all times, must not only
be characterized with propriety and decorum, but must also be above suspicion.
For every employee of the judiciary should
be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.15
The Investigating Judge recommended that both respondents be suspended for six (6) months and to pay a fine equivalent to three (3) months salary with a warning that any future misconduct will merit their dismissal from office. We agree with the said recommendation which we believe is reasonable or well-taken.
WHEREFORE, respondents Alexander Rimando and Abraham Almazan are hereby ordered SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and each of them to pay a FINE equivalent to three (3) months salary with a WARNING that a repetition of the same offense will merit their dismissal from office.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 30-33.
2 Rollo, p. 34.
3 Rollo, p. 36.
4 Rollo, p. 38.
5 TSN, January 8, 1997, p. 16.
6 Rollo, p. 43.
7 Rollo, pp. 44-45.
8 TSN, February 12, 1997, p. 18.
9 TSN, January 15, 1997, p. 6.
10 Rollo, p. 30.
11 TSN, February 12, 1997, pp. 12-13.
12 TSN, February 12, 1997, pp. 18-20.
13 Report, p. 16.
14 TSN, January 8, 1997, pp. 29-30.
15 Cunanan v. Tuazon, 237 SCRA 380, 388 (1994).