ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 01-4-237-RTC.September 17, 2002]
RE:PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY MR. DIOKNO
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 SEPT 2002.
A.M. No. 01-4-237-RTC (Re: Proposals Submitted by Mr. Elmer Diokno, President of the Manila RTC Sheriffs Association.)
This pertains to the letter dated January 12, 2O01 by Mr. Either Diokno, President of the Manila RTC Sheriff's Association, submitting several proposals aimed at enhancing and maintaining the efficiency of sheriffs. After referral thereof to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepa�o submitted on March 31, 2001, her report and recommendations.
Mr. Diokno's letter contained a query, namely, whether the security of the court is part of the sheriff's duties where there is no bailiff assigned to provide security during trial. Providing security to the court is not one of the official duties of the sheriff.Pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and administrative circulars and issuances readily show that, except as otherwise specially provided, the sheriff is confined to serving and/or executing in person, or by deputy, writs, orders and other processes of the Court. [1] cralaw There is no need to designate bailiffs in every court since trial proceedings are, as a general rule, peaceful except in those instances where sensational cases are involved. In such situations, the trial court can always seek assistance from security personnel contracted by this Court who are tasked to secure offices and courts housed in the Halls of Justice, the local police force or even members of the armed forces when the need arises.
Mr. Diokno submits nine proposals, which we shall discuss sequentially:
In the first proposal, it is suggested that sheriffs and process servers must be allowed to reimburse actual traveling expenses incurred in the service of court processes after office hours, on weekends and holidays, which should be considered "on official time" so that they will be covered by government insurance.
The request must be denied pending further study on the feasibility thereof vis-�-vis existing rules, circulars and issuances. Under Section 340, Chapter 1, Title 6, Book III of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, government officials and employees on official travel are allowed reimbursement of actual fare at the prevailing rates of transportation from the permanent station of the employee or official concerned to his destination and back. This presupposes that the travel is official or authorized. Before sheriffs and process servers may be entitled to reimbursement, guidelines must, however, be first laid down to implement this. Furthermore, focus must be made on those cases such as petitions for habeas corpus, election cases, special civil actions and cases involving tourists which by their nature demand urgency.
The second proposal, on the implementation of the circular providing for cash advances to be given to judges for purpose of providing transportation allowances to sheriffs and process servers, must likewise be denied.
The circular referred to in the letter is Administrative Order No. 6 dated June 30, 1975. This empowers the Executive Judge to personally authorize the disbursements for maintenance and repair of court equipment and for travel expenses for sheriffs and process servers out of funds in the custody of the clerk of court as such advances from this Court. The amount should not exceed One thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) for each branch per quarter. This provision was implemented in the past but was subsequently stopped due to problems attendant to the liquidation of the cash advances.
The clerks of court who had custody of the funds found it difficult to comply with Section 179, Article 2, Title 4, Book III of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual. Section 179 prescribes that the cash advance for petty operating expenses/field operating expenses shall be liquidated within twenty (20) days after the end of each year, subject to replenishments during the year. Failure to liquidate within the prescribed period shall be a valid cause for withholding the salary of the accountable officer or the filing of appropriate administrative action against him.
Experience has demonstrated that the accountable officer who held the cash advances were not able to seasonably liquidate the same or failed to provide the supporting documentation for the expenditures. Some could not be cleared of their accountability due to deficiencies in liquidation. In the absence of any effective and expeditious mode of liquidating the cash advances, the Court is not inclined to suggest the resumption of the implementation of the provisions of Paragraph (5), Section IV, of Administrative Order No. 6 dated June 30, 1975.
The third proposal, which suggests that summons fees collected in the amount of Fifty pesos (P50.00) per defendant upon the filing of a civil action must be given to sheriffs and process servers as part of the incentives for efficient sheriffs and process servers, must also be denied.
The proposal would entail a tedious process of amendment, publication and implementation of relevant provisions of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on legal fees.The amounts collected as summons fees are allocated between the General Fund and Judiciary Development Fund in accordance with existing administrative issuances. Furthermore, to grant the request for change in the beneficiary of the summons fees from the General Fund/Judiciary Development Fund to the sheriffs and process servers would be to open the floodgates for other employees of the lower courts to follow with similar requests.
The fourth proposal, which urges the designation of a member coming from the lower court officials or rank-and-file employees to the special committee task force in this Court that formulates policies affecting the lower courts, would be superfluous and, hence, should be denied.
The Committee tasked with formulating, considering and studying concerns affecting the lower courts always includes a representative from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Should there be need for the views or inputs of specific occupational groups, the officers of their respective associations can be invited as resource persons.
The fifth proposal, requesting that newly appointed sheriffs should be permitted to seek the assistance of one (1) Sheriff to help and guide them in the implementation of court writs, is well-taken.A newly-appointed sheriff needs the guidance and steadying influence of a more experienced sheriff in going about the performance of his tasks especially during the period in which he familiarizes himself with his duties and responsibilities. To aid the process it would be useful for the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in coordination with the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA) to formulate and develop immersion programs for sheriffs to facilitate the integration of those newly appointed into the judicial system.
The sixth proposal seeking permission for sheriffs to file cases of "assault" or "obstruction of justice" against persons who subject them to verbal or physical assault during the performance of their official duties is likewise a superfluity and, thus, must be denied.
There are adequate penal sanctions provided by law for persons who subject sheriffs to the verbal or physical assaults pointed out.Articles 151 and 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for instance provide that:
ART. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
ART. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority. - In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barangay captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
Any person who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who tomes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges or universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority.
Sheriffs and process servers may also file a case for obstruction of justice under Section 1, paragraph (e) of P.D. No. 1829 which penalizes any person who delays the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of processes, court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals' offices, Tanodbayan, or in other courts.
The seventh proposal requesting for guidelines in apprehending or prosecuting bribe givers in cases of bribery attempts on court personnel is unnecessary and, hence, denied.A close coordination with the police, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and other law enforcement agencies who have standard operating procedures for the arrest of offenders would suffice.
The eighth proposal refers to the provision of a regular seminar for all employees of the lower courts.This is already provided by the Philippine Judicial Academy. Hence, the proposal should be denied.
Lastly, the ninth proposal calling for the designation of an additional member from the lower courts to the Selection and Promotions Board of the OCA for lower courts is likewise denied.
The proposal to add nine (9) more members to represent Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao in the Selection and Promotion Board is not only impractical but is also inconsistent with Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1989.This Circular allows only two (2) representatives from the rank and file, one from the first level and the other from the second level, to be members of the Board.
It should be noted in this regard that under Administrative Order No. 64-93, [2] cralaw the Board is composed of the Court Administrator as Chairman, Deputy Court Administrators as Vice-Chairmen, a representative from the Office of the Chief Justice, the Chief of Administrative Services or his/her representative and a representative of the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE).
ACCORDINGLY , the proposal/request of the Manila RTC Sheriff's Association is hereby --
1.]������� GRANTED as regards the following:
a.]������� Newly appointed Sheriffs may request the assistance of one (1) experienced Sheriff to help and guide them in the performance of their duties and responsibilities particularly the enforcement and implementation of the various court writs;
2.]������� DENIED as to the following:
a.]������� The reimbursement of actual traveling expenses incurredin the service of court processes after office hours, on weekends and holidays, pending the formulation of the proper guidelines for the implementation thereof;
b.]������� The implementation of Administrative Order No. 6, dated June 30, 1975, Section IV, paragraph 5 purpose of providing transportation allowances to sheriffs and Process Servers pending the formulation of a more expeditious mode of liquidating cash advances;
c.]������� The allocation of P50.00 per defendant upon the filing of a civil action, of Summons fees as part of the incentives of Sheriffs and Process Servers;
d.]������� The designation of a lower court official and a rank-and-file employee to be a member of the special committee or task force in the Court that formulates policies affecting the lower courts;
e.]������� The filing of cases for assault and obstruction of justice where Sheriffs are subjected to verbal and physical assault in the course of the performance of their official duties;
f.]�������� The setting of guidelines in apprehending and prosecuting bribe-givers;
g.]������� The provision of a regular seminar for all employees of the lower courts; and
h.]������� The designation of additional members to the Selectionand Promotion Board for lower courts of the Office of the Court Administrator.
The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to prepare the pertinent guidelines for the assistance of newly appointed sheriffs in the performance of their duties and responsibilities.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Acting Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Handbook for Sheriffs, p. 9 (2001).
[2] cralaw Re:Creating a Selection and Promotion Board for the Lower Courts.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
