July 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > July 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2509 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 05-2257-P) : July 30, 2008] FRANCIS M. ZOSA VERSUS CHELEMER E. LABAJO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY, BRANCH 20. :
[A.M. No. P-08-2509 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 05-2257-P) : July 30, 2008]
FRANCIS M. ZOSA VERSUS CHELEMER E. LABAJO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY, BRANCH 20.
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this court dated 30 July, 2008
A.M. No. P-08-2509 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 05-2257-P) � FRANCIS M. ZOSA versus CHELEMER E. LABAJO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 20.
In a verified complaint dated July 11, 2005, complainant Atty. Francis M. Zosa, counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 22298 entitled Ngo Tiong Kaw v. Tera Ngo, et al., charged respondent Chelemer E. Labajo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch 20, with gross neglect of duty in connection with the execution of judgment in that case.
Complaint alleged that on November 5, 2004, he filed a motion for issuance of writ of execution which was granted on November 30, 2004.[1] Subsequently, he paid the necessary amount for expenses so that respondent could execute the writ. When the 30-day period[2] for a sheriff to make a return on the writ of execution lapsed, complaint Zosa requested a copy thereof from respondent, on March 18, 2005. He averred that up to the time he filed the complaint, he had not been provided by respondent with a copy of the return on the writ. For this, complaint prayed that respondent be administratively sanctioned.[3]
Respondent denied that he was negligent. He submitted documents showing that the he issued a notice of garnishment dated December 13, 2004 and a sheriff�s report dated February 3, 2005. He explained that the practice in the RTC, Branch 20, was to append the return to the case records and the copies thereof released by the clerk-in-charge of civil cases. According to him, the records of the case were misplaced and it took time for the same to be found; thus, the report was not promptly attached to the record and furnished the complainant. He asserted that he had to attend to other cases that also needed his attention. If ever there were lapses on his part, they were unintentional.[4]
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its evaluation dated May 28, 2008, found that respondent in deed neglected his duties under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court:
We agree with the findings and evaluation of the OCA but hold that a stiffer penalty is warranted under the circumstances.
The language of Section 14, Rule 39 is clear as to the duties of the sheriff with respect to the return on the writ of execution, i.e., shall within 30 days from receipt of the writ make a report to the court of the full or partial satisfaction of the judgment, stating the reason in case of the latter, with copies thereof promptly furnished the parties. In case of partial satisfaction, he shall keep the writ (which shall continue to be in effect) during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion and he shall make a periodic report to the court every 30 days on the proceedings taken on the writ until the judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires, again with copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
Except for the sheriff�s report dated February 3, 2005 showing that the judgment was not satisfied fully or partially, no other periodic report was ever submitted by respondent to the court. But even if there was an initial sheriff�s report, respondent did not promptly furnish the parties with copies thereof as required by the Rules of Court. In fact, he refused to do so even after a request was made by complainant. Clearly, not only was there a wanton disregard by respondent of the duties required of him as a sheriff, there was much more than met the eye in such refusal to perform his duties.
The defense offered by respondent, which we dismissed as incredulous, cannot absolve him from liability. First, he claims that his report was not promptly attached to the records of the case as said records were misplaced. This is totally irrelevant as the case record is not necessary to enable him to promptly furnish the parties a copy of his return/report. Second, he alleges that it was another employee, the clerk-in-charge of civil cases, who was tasked with releasing copies of the report to the parties. Of course not. Respondent was the accountable officer under Section 14, Rule 39 and was duty-bound to ensure compliance therewith.
also provides the court insight into how efficient court processes are after judgment has been promulgated. The overall purpose of the requirement is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions.[7]
Respondent�s failure to submit a return within 30 days from receipt of the writ, to file periodic reports every 30 days thereafter and to furnish the parties copies thereof constitute simple neglect of duty. This is define as the failure of an employee to give one�s attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months, for the first offense.[8] The Court deems it fit that respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for six months.[9]
Respondent�s violation of the Rules of Court and lack of professionalism in the performance of his duties impede and detract from the fair and just administration of justice.[10] The Court will not tolerate any conduct of judicial agents or employees which tends to denigrate or actually diminishes the faith of the people to the judiciary.[11]
WHEREFORE, respondents Chelemer E. Labajo, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 20 is hereby found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. He is SUSPENDED for six (6) months and STRENLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt even more severely.
Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personnel files of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. P-08-2509 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 05-2257-P) � FRANCIS M. ZOSA versus CHELEMER E. LABAJO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 20.
In a verified complaint dated July 11, 2005, complainant Atty. Francis M. Zosa, counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 22298 entitled Ngo Tiong Kaw v. Tera Ngo, et al., charged respondent Chelemer E. Labajo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch 20, with gross neglect of duty in connection with the execution of judgment in that case.
Complaint alleged that on November 5, 2004, he filed a motion for issuance of writ of execution which was granted on November 30, 2004.[1] Subsequently, he paid the necessary amount for expenses so that respondent could execute the writ. When the 30-day period[2] for a sheriff to make a return on the writ of execution lapsed, complaint Zosa requested a copy thereof from respondent, on March 18, 2005. He averred that up to the time he filed the complaint, he had not been provided by respondent with a copy of the return on the writ. For this, complaint prayed that respondent be administratively sanctioned.[3]
Respondent denied that he was negligent. He submitted documents showing that the he issued a notice of garnishment dated December 13, 2004 and a sheriff�s report dated February 3, 2005. He explained that the practice in the RTC, Branch 20, was to append the return to the case records and the copies thereof released by the clerk-in-charge of civil cases. According to him, the records of the case were misplaced and it took time for the same to be found; thus, the report was not promptly attached to the record and furnished the complainant. He asserted that he had to attend to other cases that also needed his attention. If ever there were lapses on his part, they were unintentional.[4]
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its evaluation dated May 28, 2008, found that respondent in deed neglected his duties under Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court:
Section 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 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 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 if 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 promptly furnished the parties.It recommended that respondent be held liable for simple neglect of duty and severely reprimanded.
We agree with the findings and evaluation of the OCA but hold that a stiffer penalty is warranted under the circumstances.
The language of Section 14, Rule 39 is clear as to the duties of the sheriff with respect to the return on the writ of execution, i.e., shall within 30 days from receipt of the writ make a report to the court of the full or partial satisfaction of the judgment, stating the reason in case of the latter, with copies thereof promptly furnished the parties. In case of partial satisfaction, he shall keep the writ (which shall continue to be in effect) during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion and he shall make a periodic report to the court every 30 days on the proceedings taken on the writ until the judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires, again with copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
Except for the sheriff�s report dated February 3, 2005 showing that the judgment was not satisfied fully or partially, no other periodic report was ever submitted by respondent to the court. But even if there was an initial sheriff�s report, respondent did not promptly furnish the parties with copies thereof as required by the Rules of Court. In fact, he refused to do so even after a request was made by complainant. Clearly, not only was there a wanton disregard by respondent of the duties required of him as a sheriff, there was much more than met the eye in such refusal to perform his duties.
The defense offered by respondent, which we dismissed as incredulous, cannot absolve him from liability. First, he claims that his report was not promptly attached to the records of the case as said records were misplaced. This is totally irrelevant as the case record is not necessary to enable him to promptly furnish the parties a copy of his return/report. Second, he alleges that it was another employee, the clerk-in-charge of civil cases, who was tasked with releasing copies of the report to the parties. Of course not. Respondent was the accountable officer under Section 14, Rule 39 and was duty-bound to ensure compliance therewith.
�[Execution] is the fruit and end of the suit. Without execution, a judgment would be a pyrrhic victory for the prevailing party. As the sheriff, respondent is the officer of the court charged with delicate task of executing the judgment in a case. By so doing, he plays an integral role in the administration of justice. The sheriff, in carrying out his task, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his behavior. He is expected to execute the directives of the court strictly in accordance with the letter thereof and without any deviation therefrom.[5]Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and high standards are expected of them. This is because
[At] the grassroot of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court; for the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat�[6]The submission of the return and periodic reports is not an empty requirement. It serves to update the court and prevailing parties on the status of the execution and to apprise them of the reason(s) why judgment has not been satisfied. It
also provides the court insight into how efficient court processes are after judgment has been promulgated. The overall purpose of the requirement is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions.[7]
Respondent�s failure to submit a return within 30 days from receipt of the writ, to file periodic reports every 30 days thereafter and to furnish the parties copies thereof constitute simple neglect of duty. This is define as the failure of an employee to give one�s attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months, for the first offense.[8] The Court deems it fit that respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for six months.[9]
Respondent�s violation of the Rules of Court and lack of professionalism in the performance of his duties impede and detract from the fair and just administration of justice.[10] The Court will not tolerate any conduct of judicial agents or employees which tends to denigrate or actually diminishes the faith of the people to the judiciary.[11]
WHEREFORE, respondents Chelemer E. Labajo, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 20 is hereby found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. He is SUSPENDED for six (6) months and STRENLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt even more severely.
Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personnel files of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] The decision was in favor of plaintiff. Defendant was ordered to pay plaintiff the amount of US $77,971.52 or its equivalent in pesos, 12% legal interest, P300,000 attorney�s fees and P20,000 litigation expense.
[2] Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
[3] Complaint, pp. 1-2.
[4] Complaint, pp. 1-2.
[5] Malsi v. Malana, Jr., A.M. No. p-07-2290, 25 May 2007, 523 SCRA 167, 171, citing Eduarte v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-94-1069, 9 November 19994, 238 SCRA 41, in turn citing Tan v. Herras, A.M. No. p-90-904, 11 March 1991, 195 SCRA 1; Villareal v. Ramara, A.M. No. P-94-1108, 23 August 1995, 247 SCRA 43.
[6] Id,. Citing Canlas v. Balasabas, A.M. No. P-99-1317, 1 August 200, 337 SCRA 41, in turn citing Vda. De Abellera v. Dalisay, 335 Phil. 527 (1997).
[7] Patawaran v. Nepomuceno, A.M. No. P-02-1655, 6 February 2007, 514 SCRA, 227.
[8] Also in Section 23, Rule XIV, Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
[9] Flores v. Gatcheco, Jr., A.M. No. P-06-2266, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 58, 62; Flores v. Marquez, A.M. No. P-06-2277, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 35, 44-45.
[10] See Re: Danilo Cunanan, A.M. No. 91-8-374-OMB, 28 November 1994, 238 SCRA 421, 425, citing Hipolito v. Mergas, A.M. No. P-90-412, 11 March 1991, 195 SCRA 6.
[11] Bansil v. de Leon, A.M. No. P-05-2035, 31 July 2006, 497 SCRA 147, 153 citing Philippines Bank of Communications v. Torio, A.M. No. P-98-1260, 14 January 1998, 248 SCRA 67, 77-78.
