May 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-10-2797 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3243-P) : May 30, 2011]
RHEA MONTORIO, COMPLAINANT -VERSUS- REX M. FUENTEBELLA, SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BAGO CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.
A.M. No. P-10-2797 - (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3243-P) - RHEA MONTORIO, complainant -versus- REX M. FUENTEBELLA, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City, Negros Occidental, respondent.
RESOLUTION
We resolve the present administrative matter which stemmed from the affidavit-complaint, dated August 19, 2009,[1] filed by Ms. Rhea Montorio (complainant) charging Sheriff Rex M. Fuentebella (respondent) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bago City, with abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a court employee, relative to Civil Case No. 1932, entitled "Luz Dayon v. Ofelia Montorio�' (for issuance of a writ of execution).
The Antecedents
The facts are set out in the report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated April 13, 2010[2] and are summarized below.
The complainant is the daughter of the respondent in the civil case, Ofelia Montorio. She claims that she is the registered owner of the two (2) motor vehicles (a Hyundai jeepney and a Suzuki multi-cab) which were seized and impounded by the respondent in connection with the decision of the MTCC, Bago City, Negros Occidental, in the civil case. The complainant further claims that despite her pleas, the respondent forcibly seized and impounded the vehicles, depriving her of their possession and use for more than a month. She adds that the respondent knew all along that her mother is not the registered owner of the vehicles.
The complainant stresses that the respondent's abusive conduct compelled her to go to court with a third-party claim, seeking the release of the vehicles. Judge Herminigildo S. Octaviano of the MTCC, Bago City, acted favorably on her claim and directed (he respondent and his deputy to release the vehicles to her.[3]
In his comment filed on October 29, 2009[4] the respondent contends that the complainant's charges are based on lies and are aimed to discredit him. He alleges that when he seized the vehicles, he was under the impression that they were owned by Ofelia Montorio as the complainant is jobless and living on her parents� generosity.
The respondent further alleges that during the actual levy of the vehicles, the complainant refused to present the registration certificates of the vehicles to establish her ownership over them. He also offers the inconsistent tale that the complainant and her brother voluntarily surrendered the two vehicles to him in exchange for a canter truck that was then undergoing repair. The two allegedly were afraid that their father would be furious if he learned of their mother's case. The respondent maintains that he only came to know that the complainant is the owner of the two vehicles when she filed the third-party claim. When the court granted the claim, he immediately released the vehicles to the complainant who even thanked him through her cellphone.
In a motion dated May 27, 2010,[5] the respondent asked that the complaint be dismissed, reiterating his position that it was based on lies and that the complainant failed to file an opposition to his comment.
The Court re-docketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision based on the records.[6] The respondent so manifested on August 25, 2010.[7] The complainant opted to remain silent.
The Court's Ruling
The OCA informed the Court, in its report of April 33, 2010,[8] that the respondent erred in taking hold of the complainant's two motor vehicles, in the course of the implementation of a writ of execution issued in a civil case where the complainant's mother was the judgment debtor. The vehicles do not belong to the mother, but to the complainant.
The facts of the case support the OCA's conclusion.
Although what the respondent did may not amount to grave abuse of authority since it was his duty as sheriff to implement the writ of execution, he should have been more diligent and cautious in doing his job. He should have verified the true ownership of the vehicles, especially after the complainant refused[9] to show him the vehicles' registration papers when he asked for them.
As the OCA noted, the respondent "only came to know that herein complainant is the owner of the two vehicles when the latter filed a third-party claim."[10] Clearly, by taking custody of the vehicles without, ascertaining their lawful ownership, the respondent acted in a manner prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Surely, the incident could only cause an erosion of the complainant's trust in the courts, for she was deprived of the possession and use of the two vehicles without due process.
With his actuations in the implementation of the writ in the civil case, the respondent placed the judiciary in a bad light. For this, he deserves to be sanctioned, notwithstanding the fact that the complainant had not opposed his motion to dismiss. While it is true that "[w]hen 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,�[11] it is well to remind the respondent that -
As court employees, sheriffs are obliged to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum and to ensure that their actions are above suspicion at all times. The Court cannot countenance � it in fact condemns � any conduct, act or omission that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes, or even just tends to diminish, the faith of the people in the judiciary.[12]
In light of the foregoing, we find the respondent liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.[13] This notwithstanding, we note that there is no showing that the respondent has been previously charged administratively and that the complainant did not oppose his motion to dismiss the complaint. We, thus, deem a fine of P10,000.00 an appropriate sanction for the respondent in this case. On this point, we had occasion to state in an earlier case that "[w]hile this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy."[14]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Rex M. Fuentebella, Sheriff III, MTCC, Bago City, Negros Occidental, is declared LIABLE for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and is FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00). He is WARNED that a commission of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-3.[2] Id. at 23-26.
[3] Id. at 12-14, dated March 30, 2009; Complaint. Annex "F.�
[4] Id. at 16-17.
[5] Id. at 29.
[6] Id. at 27; Resolution dated June 23, 2010.
[7] Id. at 33; Manifestation dated August 9. 2010.
[8] Supra note 2.
[9] Rollo, p. 17; Respondent's Comment, p. 2, par. 2.
[10] Supra note 2; OCA Report, p. 2, par. 2.
[11] Padilla v. Arabia, A.M. No. 93-774, March 8, 1995, 242 SCRA 227, 231.
[12] De Leon-Dela Cruz v. Recacho, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 622, 628.
[13] UNIFORM RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Section 52(20).
[14] Aquino v. Fernandez, A.M. No. P-01-1475, October 17, 2003, 413 SCRA 597, 607.
