October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > October 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-06-2232 : October 26, 2009] ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, COMPLAINANT VS. DEPUTY SHERIFF IV FERNANDO R. REGINO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 94, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT. :
[A.M. No. P-06-2232 : October 26, 2009]
ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, COMPLAINANT VS. DEPUTY SHERIFF IV FERNANDO R. REGINO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 94, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 26 October 2009:
A.M. No. P-06-2232 - ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, complainant versus DEPUTY SHERIFF IV FERNANDO R. REGINO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 94, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
Respondent Fernando R. Regino, Deputy Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, was charged with grave abuse of discretion and infidelity in the custody of levied properties by complainant Atty. Leticia E. Ala.[1]
Complainant Atty. Ala is the petitioner's counsel in Civil Case No. Q-00-40681[2] entitled "Adelaida Alba-Chua v. Benson Go Chud" where she obtained a money judgment in the amount of P2,851,203.67.[3] It appeared that on July 14, 2005, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94, where the case was pending, issued a Writ of Execution[4] for the payment of the money judgment and its delivery to Atty. Ala.
Tasked to implement the writ, respondent, together with Atty. Ala and Ricson Marinduque, a personnel of the said.court, went to Cebu City and levied on three vehicles, namely, a Nissan Terrano with Plate No. KBZ-250, a Nissan Patrol with Plate No. KCF-603 and a Mitsubishi L-300 van with Plate No. TLZ-284.[5] However, upon verification, respondent found that only the Nissan Patrol is registered in the name of the judgment obligor Benson Chua. Respondent nonetheless scheduled the auction of the levied properties on September.13, 2005.
During the public auction, notices of third-party claims were served on respondent, to wit: (a) an affidavit of third-party claim of Joselito V. Corcino, Jr. of RCBC Savings Bank, as mortgagee of the Nissan Patrol; (2)an affidavit of third-party claim of Wilson Lim, as owner of the "Nissan Terrano; and (3) an affidavit of third-party claim of Stephen Lim, as corporate secretary of Daniele Interiors, Inc., and owner of the Mitsubishi L-300 van. Due to conflicting claims of ownership, a safekeeping agreement was executed for the levied vehicles under the custody of PS1 Patrick Va�o pending further orders from the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94.[6]
Respondent sent Atty. Ala a copy of the notice of the filing of third-party claims on the levied vehicles. He further informed Atty. Ala to post an indemnity bond and that he is not bound to keep the levied vehicles without an indemnity bond equivalent to the value of the vehicles in the aggregate amount of P1,575,000.00.[7]
On September 16, 2005, Atty. Ala filed a Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion[8] before the RTC asking the court to order the Chief of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG 7) of Cebu City, Camp Cabahug, to ship the vehicles to Quezon City. She further questioned respondent's authority to direct her to file an indemnity bond and demanded that the vehicles be retrieved within 72 hours and that the auction sale be continued.
However, the levied properties under PS1 Va�o's safekeeping were subsequently released to the lawyer for the claimants, Atty. Rex Fernandez, on account of the filing of the third-party claims. On October 3, 2005, respondent informed the RTC of the said fact in his Sheriffs Report.[9]
Aggrieved, Atty. Ala accused respondent of grave abuse of authority in the implementation of the writ of execution and infidelity in the custody of levied properties. She claimed that she spent P100,000.00 for the trips of the respondent and Ricson Marinduque to and from Cebu City, and' P28,000.00 for their pasalubongs. She added that respondent demanded from her P20,000.00 and even asked from her the aluminum van as his balato.
In his Comment[10] dated November 16, 2005, respondent pointed out that the vehicles were released because of Atty. Ala's refusal to post an indemnity bond. He also denied that he demanded upscale accommodations from the complainant.
Due to the conflicting versions of the parties, the instant case was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Quezon City for investigation, report and recommendation.[11] The Executive Judge inhibited from the case and the matter was referred to First Vice Executive Judge Thelma Ponferrada. On December 3, 2007, Judge Ponferrada submitted her report finding respondent liable for simple misconduct for failing to submit an estimate of expenses for the implementation of the writ of execution and to liquidate the advances incurred for the implementation of the said writ. Judge Ponferrada recommended that respondent be suspended from office for one month and one day.
Having fully considered all aspects of this matter, we adopt the recommendation of the investigating Judge.
As to the charges of grave abuse of authority and/or discretion and infidelity in the custody of levied properties, we find mat there is insufficient evidence to hold respondent liable.
The duty of the sheriff in connection with the execution and satisfaction of a judgment of the court is governed by Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. With regard to the proceedings to be followed when property levied on execution is claimed by a third person, Section 16 provides that if the third person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property unless the judgment creditor, on demand, posts a bond to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on.[12] If the third-party claim is sufficient, the sheriff, upon receiving it, is not bound to proceed with the levy of the property unless he is given by the judgment creditor an indemnity bond against the claim.[13]
Here, there was no basis for the levy and sale of the Nissan Terrano and the Mitsubishi L-300 van registered in the name of Wilson Lim and Daniele Interiors, Inc. respectively. Thus, considering the third-party claims and the fact that no indemnity bond under Section 16 of Rule 39 had been filed, respondent correctly ceased to proceed with the auction sale of the said vehicles.
However, we find respondent administratively liable upon a different ground but still connected with the implementation of the writ of execution. Atty. Ala charges respondent of mulcting certain sums of money and claims that respondent demanded from her a particular sum of money without furnishing her an estimate or details of the expenses and without securing court approval. Respondent argues that complainant was in charge of the finances and that he left all the arrangements to her so that she could have a free hand to do what she thought was best, and simply informed her on what was needed.
It must be stressed that there are well-defined steps provided in the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 141, Section 10, final paragraph,[14] regarding the payment of expenses that might be incurred for the execution of writs and other processes: (1) the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him; (2) he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; (3) the approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-oficio sheriff; (4) the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and (5) the executing sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ.
Undoubtedly, respondent sidestepped the above-mentioned procedures. The money was not deposited with the Clerk of Court and there was no showing that the amount demanded was with the court's prior approval. He should have waited for the money to be officially disbursed to him if indeed due or required for expenses. Likewise, he also failed to properly liquidate the alleged expenses he incurred. But absent any showing that the respondent deliberately sidestepped the procedure so he could demand a fee in excess of the authorized fees and pocket the excess, his act of omission in this matter simply constitutes neglect of duty.
Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[15] Simple Neglect of Duty is a less grave offense which carries a penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. Considering that this is respondent's first offense, we find the penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day sufficient under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Fernando R. Regino, Deputy Sheriff IV, LIABLE for NEGLECT OF DUTY and is SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. He is hereby WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per S.O. No. 757 in lieu of Del Castillo, J., on leave), Minita Chico-Nazario (designated additional member per S.O. No. 759 in lieu of Carpio Moraies, J., on official business), Arturo D. Brion and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 26th day of October, 2009.
A.M. No. P-06-2232 - ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, complainant versus DEPUTY SHERIFF IV FERNANDO R. REGINO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 94, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
Respondent Fernando R. Regino, Deputy Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, was charged with grave abuse of discretion and infidelity in the custody of levied properties by complainant Atty. Leticia E. Ala.[1]
Complainant Atty. Ala is the petitioner's counsel in Civil Case No. Q-00-40681[2] entitled "Adelaida Alba-Chua v. Benson Go Chud" where she obtained a money judgment in the amount of P2,851,203.67.[3] It appeared that on July 14, 2005, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94, where the case was pending, issued a Writ of Execution[4] for the payment of the money judgment and its delivery to Atty. Ala.
Tasked to implement the writ, respondent, together with Atty. Ala and Ricson Marinduque, a personnel of the said.court, went to Cebu City and levied on three vehicles, namely, a Nissan Terrano with Plate No. KBZ-250, a Nissan Patrol with Plate No. KCF-603 and a Mitsubishi L-300 van with Plate No. TLZ-284.[5] However, upon verification, respondent found that only the Nissan Patrol is registered in the name of the judgment obligor Benson Chua. Respondent nonetheless scheduled the auction of the levied properties on September.13, 2005.
During the public auction, notices of third-party claims were served on respondent, to wit: (a) an affidavit of third-party claim of Joselito V. Corcino, Jr. of RCBC Savings Bank, as mortgagee of the Nissan Patrol; (2)an affidavit of third-party claim of Wilson Lim, as owner of the "Nissan Terrano; and (3) an affidavit of third-party claim of Stephen Lim, as corporate secretary of Daniele Interiors, Inc., and owner of the Mitsubishi L-300 van. Due to conflicting claims of ownership, a safekeeping agreement was executed for the levied vehicles under the custody of PS1 Patrick Va�o pending further orders from the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94.[6]
Respondent sent Atty. Ala a copy of the notice of the filing of third-party claims on the levied vehicles. He further informed Atty. Ala to post an indemnity bond and that he is not bound to keep the levied vehicles without an indemnity bond equivalent to the value of the vehicles in the aggregate amount of P1,575,000.00.[7]
On September 16, 2005, Atty. Ala filed a Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion[8] before the RTC asking the court to order the Chief of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG 7) of Cebu City, Camp Cabahug, to ship the vehicles to Quezon City. She further questioned respondent's authority to direct her to file an indemnity bond and demanded that the vehicles be retrieved within 72 hours and that the auction sale be continued.
However, the levied properties under PS1 Va�o's safekeeping were subsequently released to the lawyer for the claimants, Atty. Rex Fernandez, on account of the filing of the third-party claims. On October 3, 2005, respondent informed the RTC of the said fact in his Sheriffs Report.[9]
Aggrieved, Atty. Ala accused respondent of grave abuse of authority in the implementation of the writ of execution and infidelity in the custody of levied properties. She claimed that she spent P100,000.00 for the trips of the respondent and Ricson Marinduque to and from Cebu City, and' P28,000.00 for their pasalubongs. She added that respondent demanded from her P20,000.00 and even asked from her the aluminum van as his balato.
In his Comment[10] dated November 16, 2005, respondent pointed out that the vehicles were released because of Atty. Ala's refusal to post an indemnity bond. He also denied that he demanded upscale accommodations from the complainant.
Due to the conflicting versions of the parties, the instant case was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Quezon City for investigation, report and recommendation.[11] The Executive Judge inhibited from the case and the matter was referred to First Vice Executive Judge Thelma Ponferrada. On December 3, 2007, Judge Ponferrada submitted her report finding respondent liable for simple misconduct for failing to submit an estimate of expenses for the implementation of the writ of execution and to liquidate the advances incurred for the implementation of the said writ. Judge Ponferrada recommended that respondent be suspended from office for one month and one day.
Having fully considered all aspects of this matter, we adopt the recommendation of the investigating Judge.
As to the charges of grave abuse of authority and/or discretion and infidelity in the custody of levied properties, we find mat there is insufficient evidence to hold respondent liable.
The duty of the sheriff in connection with the execution and satisfaction of a judgment of the court is governed by Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. With regard to the proceedings to be followed when property levied on execution is claimed by a third person, Section 16 provides that if the third person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property unless the judgment creditor, on demand, posts a bond to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on.[12] If the third-party claim is sufficient, the sheriff, upon receiving it, is not bound to proceed with the levy of the property unless he is given by the judgment creditor an indemnity bond against the claim.[13]
Here, there was no basis for the levy and sale of the Nissan Terrano and the Mitsubishi L-300 van registered in the name of Wilson Lim and Daniele Interiors, Inc. respectively. Thus, considering the third-party claims and the fact that no indemnity bond under Section 16 of Rule 39 had been filed, respondent correctly ceased to proceed with the auction sale of the said vehicles.
However, we find respondent administratively liable upon a different ground but still connected with the implementation of the writ of execution. Atty. Ala charges respondent of mulcting certain sums of money and claims that respondent demanded from her a particular sum of money without furnishing her an estimate or details of the expenses and without securing court approval. Respondent argues that complainant was in charge of the finances and that he left all the arrangements to her so that she could have a free hand to do what she thought was best, and simply informed her on what was needed.
It must be stressed that there are well-defined steps provided in the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 141, Section 10, final paragraph,[14] regarding the payment of expenses that might be incurred for the execution of writs and other processes: (1) the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him; (2) he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; (3) the approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-oficio sheriff; (4) the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and (5) the executing sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ.
Undoubtedly, respondent sidestepped the above-mentioned procedures. The money was not deposited with the Clerk of Court and there was no showing that the amount demanded was with the court's prior approval. He should have waited for the money to be officially disbursed to him if indeed due or required for expenses. Likewise, he also failed to properly liquidate the alleged expenses he incurred. But absent any showing that the respondent deliberately sidestepped the procedure so he could demand a fee in excess of the authorized fees and pocket the excess, his act of omission in this matter simply constitutes neglect of duty.
Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[15] Simple Neglect of Duty is a less grave offense which carries a penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. Considering that this is respondent's first offense, we find the penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day sufficient under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Fernando R. Regino, Deputy Sheriff IV, LIABLE for NEGLECT OF DUTY and is SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay. He is hereby WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per S.O. No. 757 in lieu of Del Castillo, J., on leave), Minita Chico-Nazario (designated additional member per S.O. No. 759 in lieu of Carpio Moraies, J., on official business), Arturo D. Brion and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 26th day of October, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2] Id. at 9.
[3] Id. at 7.
[4] Id. at 4-8.
[5] Id. at 10-11.
[6] Id. at 11.
[7] Id. at 80.
[8] Id. at 12-17.
[9] Id. at 101.
[10] Id. at 45-55.
[11] Id. at 162-165.
[12] RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 16.
SEC. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. - If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any thirdperson from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.
[13] Pianos and Verdon v. Madrigal & Co., et al, 94 Phil. 754, 757 (1954).
[14] SEC. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons serving processes.
xxxx
With regard to sheriffs expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guard's fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses 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. THE LIQUIDATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COURT. 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.
[15] Resolution No. 99-1936, effective on September 27, 1999.
