ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
A. M. No. P-01-1492. March 20, 2003
RENATO MIGUEL D. GARCIA, complainant, vs. PERSHING T. YARED, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court, Canlaon City Negros Oriental, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
In
a letter-complaint -complaint dated September 29, 1999, complainant
complainant Renato Miguel D. Garcia charged
respondent Pershing T. Yared, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court of Canlaon
City, Negros Oriental, with
neglect of
duty and grave abuse of authority charged respondent Pershing
T. Yared, Sheriff III, MTCC, Canalon City, Negros Oriental, with Neglect of Duty and Grave Abuse of Authority relative to
Civil Cases Nos. 334,1
328,2
3523
and 367., all for
the Collection of Sum of Money and Damages.4cräläwvirtualibräry
Complainant
is the President and Manager of the Rural Bank of
Guihulngan (Neg. Or.), Inc., is the
President and Manager of the Rural Bank of
Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc. which is which is the
plaintiff and prevailing party in
the Civil
Cases Nos. 334, 328, 352 and 367civil
cases, all for collection
of sum of money and damages.
He claims that the
judgments in said civil cases remain
unsatisfied since the writs
of execution therein are not being implemented properly and efficiently by .
He
alleged that respondent, as
follows: failed
to execute the writs of execution in the
following civil
cases
1. Civil Case
No. 334 - T.
he last
Return of Service was on October 3, 1997 (Annex A).
, to wit:
The d Defendants in this case in this case are all MTC personnel..
His previous reports dated were May
7 & 18, 1993 (Annex B & C) states that
Rene Ricablanca & Juliana Montejar receive
from their employer, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the
amount of P2,630.00
each which is far below poverty line
(underlining ours).
Our
heart bleeds for them.
But this is
already 1999.
Are their salaries still
below poverty line?
2. Civil Case No. 328 Mr. Yared was able to get an old Karaoke, which was out of order but still, was sold for P1,000.00. The amount collectible is P3,706.08 with interest of 1% a month beginning Feb. 26, 1991. No further action was taken by Mr. Yared so on Dec. 14, 1992 an Order from the Court was obtained for an Alias Writ of Execution (Annex D) for the amount of P4,908.10. To date no action has been taken.
3. .
Civil Case No. 352 Mr. Yared signed a receipt dated Nov. 18, 1998 re receipt of the Writ of Execution (Annex E). Under his First Indorsement dated July 1, 1999 (Annex F) to the Clerk of Court which was received by the Bank on Aug. 3, 1999 he sent an estimate of his cost of travel to serve the alias writ in Cebu City in the amount of P2,000.00. However, one of the defendants who own a real property here in the locality has not been served the writ. Why go to Cebu City first? Our disagreement was manifested in Court and an ORDER dated July 21, 1999 (Annex G) was issued directing him to look into the records of the office of the Municipal Assessor in order not to circumvent the properties and the decision of the Court. To date no action has been taken.
4. CCivil
Case No. 367 -
Attached are copies of the return of service of Mr. Yared dated August 2
& 31, 1999 (Annex H and I).
We
are also providing photos of the residential houses of Mr. Bernadez, one of the
defendants, negating his report that Mr. Bernadez owns no personal and real
properties.
On October 27, 1999, then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo required respondent to comment on the letter-complaint, within ten days from receipt.
In his Answer/CComment
dated November 19, 1999, rthe respondent explained:
ned
In his side as follows:
Civil
Case No. 334 - He Respondent contends that he
furnished the defendants with the writ of execution but.
However,
said defendants, who are mere
employees of the Municipal Trial Court,
could not afford to pay the judgment amount, given their meager salary of about
P2,630.00 a month..
Efforts to locate real or personal properties of defendants yielded negative
results. By.
B virtue of a court order, an alias
writ of execution was issued on September 15, 1997 which was served unsatisfied
due to the assertion of the principal borrowersborrower
that he had already made partial payments thereon. A (Return
of Service dated October 3, 1997).
A
second alias writ dated August 25, 1998 was issued by the court wherein the
total balance therein stated already reflected the partial payments made by the
defendants but t.
This was likewise served
unsatisfied as shown in the Sheriffs Return dated November 4, 1998. R.
Respondent adds that heespondent
served the writs upon the defendants using his own money as the plaintiff bank
did not provide him with the amount to defray his expenses.
In .
Civil Case No. 328 -
Since the proceeds of the sale of the
sing-along system was insufficient, an alias writ of execution dated December
20, 1992 was issued on motion of the plaintiff bank. The alias writ was never served on the defendant spouses for the
reason that it was of judicial notice and public knowledge that the couple were
jobless, with six mouths to feed and taking care of an ailing mother who died
in 1998.
Plaintiff bank moved for the
seizure of a refrigerator which for humanitarian reasons and pursuant to Rule
39, Section 13 (b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure respondent did not
seize as it was used in their means of livelihood, selling chicken barbecue and
liquoprliquor
in a small makeshift store at the side of the national highway and, as storage
of the medicine of the ailing mother.
T.
The rhe real
property of defendant spouses could not be proceeded against as it has already
become an acquired asset of the Philippine National Bank.
In .
Civil
Case No.,
352 -
For failure of the plaintiff bank to pay the legal
fees,
Respondent explains that for failure of the plaintiff bank to pay the
legal fees, the Clerk of Court did not issue the writ of execution
until the said legal fee was finally received.
D.
Despite
the issuance of the writ on August 27, 1998, plaintiff bank failed
to deposit the fees to defray respondents expenses in going to Cebu City where
the principal borrowers reside.
R.
When plaintiffs bank manager inquired as to the
late execution of the writ respondent reasoned out by citing Bercasio vs.
Benito, 205 SCRA 275, July 14, 1997, to wit:
The rule requires the Sheriff executing the writs
or processes to estimate the expenses to be incurred. Upon the approval of the estimated expenses the interested party
ahs to deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff.
These expenses shall then be disbursed to
the Executing Sheriff subject to his liquidation within the same period for
rendering a return on the process or writ.
Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party who made the deposit.
Respondent found out upon inquiry with
the Municipal Assessor that the husband of defendant Fabia Vizano has a real
property in his name. S.
Since Fabias husband is not
himself the defendant, respondent did not attach the same considering that he
has no authority to attach the property of any person under execution except
that of the judgment debtor. R.
(Arellano vs. Flojo, 238 SCRA 72).
Respondent believed that he
should first serve the writ on the principal borrowers residing in Cebu City
before going against the co-makers, that is, t.
In other words, there must first be a showing that the
principal borrower defaulted in his payment which must be brought
to the attention of the co-makers before proceeding against the latter.
In .
Civil Case No. 367 - Defendant Leonardo Bernadez has no personal norno
personal or real properties and the house being referred to by
complainant which picture he attached in his complaint is where the defendant
and his family reside but the same is not owned by the defendant but by his son
Prem Bernadez.
In his Reply dated August 28, 2000, complainant arguescontends that it is preposterous for
respondent to claim that the defendants in Civil Case No. 334 have no personal
properties because even a mere tricycle driver sports a wristwatch nowadays and t.
Televisions
and refrigerators are now considered a must for ordinary households and even
houses in the slums have TV antennas on the rooftops. Complainant pointed out that With
regards to Civil Case No. 328, rrespondent admitted in his Comment
that he did not serve the writ with regards to Civil Case No. 328, which
citing
therein his reasons.
According to
complainant this constitutes neglect of duty because the duty to
serve and implement the writ is purely ministerial on his part as Sheriff.
Finally, Anent Civil Case No. 352, complainant
expressed that respondent is playing jugdejudge
in
Civil Case No. 352 byin
stating that he should first exhaust all means to serve the writ upon the
principal borrowers before going against the co-makers.
In a Resolution dated August 6, 2001, the Court re-docketed the administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest within ten days from notice if they are willing to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings filed.
In compliance therewith, respondent manifested that he is willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings already filed which the Court noted in a Resolution dated October 22, 2001. The complainant filed a letter dated March 6, 2002 inquiring about the status of the administrative case which the Court noted in a Resolution dated May 8, 2002.
However, complainant did not file his manifestation. Thus, the Court issued a Resolution dated November 25, 2002 requiring complainant to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to manifest his willingness to submit the administrative matter for decision based on the pleadings filed and to comply with the Resolution of August 6, 2001, both within ten days from receipt.
In a Compliance dated January 14, 2002, complainant cited heavy volume of work that he had to attend to resulting from numerous requirements imposed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) on banks and other equally pressing matters as reason for his failure to manifest before the Court that he is willing to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings filed. Not fully satisfied with the explanation of complainant, the Court admonished him to be more heedful of the orders of the Court in the Resolution dated February 19, 2003.
The Report dated June 14, 2001 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted to the Court, reads as follows:
EVALUATION: Relative to Civil Case No. 334, it is the respondents contention that he tried but failed to locate any real or personal property owned by the defendant hence the writ thereon was returned unsatisfied. Complainant, on the other hand, finds it difficult to believe that defendants do not have any property not even the basic home appliances like television set and refrigerators which are considered necessities nowadays. This bare allegation of complainant, however, does not in any way overcome the presumption that in the absence of contrary evidence, a sheriff has regularly performed his official duty (Navale vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 705).
As to Civil Case No. 328, respondent made an admission that he intentionally did not serve the Alias Writ of Execution dated December 20, 1992 upon the defendants for the reason that the latter are jobless with six mouths to feed and an ailing mother to attend to. Such an argument is untenable. Service of the writ is one thing; satisfaction of the writ is another. He should have performed his ministerial duty of serving the writ upon the defendants. If indeed said defendants have no money or property with which to pay the judgment amount, then respondent sheriff could return the writ unsatisfied.
We find nothing irregular however, on the estimate of travel cost prepared by respondent in Civil Case No. 352. This is so because part of his duty was to serve the writ upon the defendant who resides in Cebu City notwithstanding that there are other defendants who reside within the locality.
Anent Civil Case No. 367, the picture submitted by complainant which allegedly shows the residential house owned by the defendant therein could not be given credence over the bank document submitted by respondent sheriff (Annex 4-I) which tends to prove that the property actually belongs to the defendants son who is not a party to the case.
The OCA recommends that respondent be reprimanded for his failure to serve the alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. 328.
The Court agrees with the conclusion of the OCA that respondent is guilty of neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority for his failure to serve the alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. 328. However, the Court finds that respondent is also guilty of neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority in Civil Cases Nos. 334, 352 and 367.
Section 14 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly mandates the manner in which a writ of execution is to be returned to court, as well as the requisite reports to be made by the sheriff or officer, should the judgment be returned unsatisfied or only partially satisfied. In any case, every 30 days until the full satisfaction of a judgment, the sheriff or officer must make a periodic report to the court on the proceedings taken in connection with the writ. Section 14 reads as follows:
Sec. 14. Return of writ of execution.The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof furnished the parties. (Underscoring supplied)
Verily, the sheriff is mandated to execute and make a return on the writ of execution within the period provided by the Rules.[5] In addition, he must make periodic reports on partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs in accordance with the above-cited rule, in order that the court as well as the litigants may be apprised of the proceedings undertaken in connection therewith. Such periodic reporting on the status of the writs must be done by the sheriff regularly and consistently every 30 days until they are returned fully satisfied.
Respondent grievously failed to comply with the mandate of the Rules on periodic reporting. His reports were submitted sporadically such that the plaintiff bank in Civil Cases Nos. 334, 328, 352 and 367 was not regularly informed of the actions taken to satisfy the judgment in its favor. Therefore, the presumption of regularity of performance of duty cannot be considered in favor of respondent. It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of law.6 A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.7 Unless restrained by a court order to the contrary, sheriffs should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed.[8]
The Court also finds unacceptable the explanation of respondent on the actions he undertook in the implementation of the writs of execution in Civil Cases Nos. 334, 328 and 352.
The failure to promptly and efficiently implement the writs of execution in Civil Cases Nos. 334 and 352 cannot be justified by the excuse that the plaintiff bank in said civil cases did not give respondent financial assistance to defray expenses in serving and implementing the writs. Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 9. Sheriff, and other persons serving processes.--
x x x
(1) For money collected by him by order, execution, attachment, or any other process, judicial or extrajudicial, the following sums, to wit:
1. On the first four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos, four (4%)
per centum.
2. On all sums in excess of four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos
two (2%) per centum.
In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriffs expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards fees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriffs expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor. (Underscoring supplied)
It is clear that under the rule, sheriffs are authorized to collect certain specified fees in specified amounts. The sheriff has to estimate the expenses to be incurred and upon the courts approval of the estimated expenses the interested party has to deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court and the Ex-officio Sheriff. These expenses shall then be disbursed to the executing Sheriff subject to his liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process or writ. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party who made the deposit.
Respondent admittedly is well-aware of the foregoing rule. He essentially cited this rule to justify the delay in implementing the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 352. As the rule provides, respondent need not wait for the plaintiff bank or its representative to deposit an amount in court for the expenses in implementing the writ. Respondent was obliged to estimate the expenses and secure the approval of the issuing court of the estimated expenses and fees for immediate implementation of the writ of execution. He was duty-bound to collect from the winning party the expenses and fees for the implementation of the writ of execution.
The non-implementation of the alias writ of execution in Civil Case No. 328 cannot be justified by the allegation that it is judicial notice and public knowledge that the couple were jobless, with six mouths to feed and taking care of an ailing mother who died in 1998. Nor can delayed implementation of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 352 be founded on the argument that the writ of execution in said case should first be served on the principal borrowers residing in Cebu City instead of applying the writ on properties of co-makers located in the locality. To exercise compassion and discretion to the extent that the sheriff substitutes his own standard of justice for that which has been properly determined in contentious proceedings is to encroach upon the power of a judge,9 which amounts to a grave abuse of authority.
A sheriffs duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter.[10] He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not.[11] He is mandated to uphold the majesty of the law as embodied in the decision.12 When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate.[13]
Being the front-line representative of the justice system, a sheriff must always exert every effort and, indeed, consider it his bounden duty, to perform his duties in order to maintain public trust. He must see to it that the final stage in the litigation process -- the execution of the judgment -- is carried out with no unnecessary delay, in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of justice.[14] A decision left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed due to his neglect of duty renders it inutile; and worse, the parties who are prejudiced thereby tend to condemn the entire judicial system.[15]
The Court cannot countenance any act or omission which diminishes
or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.
To stress that high standards are expected
of sheriffs as agents of the law and to drive home to all those involved in the
administration of justice the obligation to perform the duties of their office
honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability, the Court deems it just
and reasonable to impose on respondent a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
WHEREFORE,
respondent Pershing T. Yared is found guilty of Neglect of
Duty and Grave Abuse of Authority.
He is FINED in the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely by this Court.
Let copy of herein Resolution be attached to the personal files of respondent Pershing T. Yared.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Entitled Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc. v. Rene Ricablanca, Juliana R. Montejar and Bobby Yap, decided on August 10, 1992.
2 Entitled Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc. v. Emma Epistola, Bonifacio Epistola, Cristino Rizona and Alice Oliva, decided on February 26, 1991.
3 Entitled Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc. v. Elizabeth Vizano, Freddie Vizano, Fabia Vizano and Roman Gonzaga, decided on February 20, 1996.
4 Entitled Rural Bank of Guihulngan (Negros Oriental), Inc. v. Luz Melancolico, Leonardo Bernadez and Materno Folgo decided on April 19, 1996.
[5] Concerned Citizen v. Torio, A.M. No. P-01-1490, July 11, 2002.
6 Villareal v. Rarama, 247 SCRA 493, 501 (1995); Tan v. Herras, 195 SCRA 1, 5 (1991).
7 Jumio v. Egay-Eviota, 231 SCRA 551, 554 (1994); Moya v. Bassig, 138 SCRA 49, 53 (1985).
8 Marisga-Magbanua v. Villamar V, 305 SCRA 132, 137 (1999).
9 Santos v. Gonzales-Munoz, A.M. No. P-02-1628, August 14, 2002.
[10] Wenceslao v. Madrazo, 247 SCRA 696, 704 (1995); Eduarte vs. Ramos, 238 SCRA 36, 40 (1994).
[11] Aristorenas v. Molina, 246 SCRA 134, 137 (1995); Evangelista v. Penserga, 242 SCRA 702 , 709 (1995); Florendo v. Enrile, 239 SCRA 22, 37 (1994); Aonuevo v. Pempea, 234 SCRA 168, 173 (1994).
12 Lapea v. Pamarang, 325 SCRA 440, 445 (2000).
[13] Francisco vs. Cruz, 340 SCRA 76, 85 (2000); Mamanteo vs. Magumun, 311 SCRA 259, 265 (1999); Onquit vs. Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA 354, 364 (1998).
[14] Lacuata vs. Bautista, 235 SCRA 290, 294 (1994).
[15] Portes vs. Tepace, 267 SCRA 185, 194 (1997).