EN BANC
ORLANDO T.
MENDOZA,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-99-1343
November 24, 2003
-versus-
SHERIFFS ROSBERT
M. TUQUERO
AND ANTONIO M.
LEAÑO,
JR.,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
For resolution by
the Court are:
(a) the
Motion
for Consideration of the Decision/Resolution dated July 10, 2002 filed
by respondent Sheriff Rosbert Tuquero; and
(b) the complaint for
manifest negligence and misfeasance filed by complainant Orlando T.
Mendoza
against Atty. Roberto Q. Tuquero, former Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the Resolution of
July
18, 2001, Sheriffs Tuquero and Antonio V. Leaño Jr. of the
Office
of the Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac were dismissed from the service for
unreasonable delay in the implementation of the writ of demolition in
Civil
Case No. 5747, entitled "Lolita P. Mendoza, represented by her
attorney-in-fact
Orlando T. Mendoza vs. Maria vda. de Tolentino, et al.," of the
Municipal
Trial Court of Tarlac, Tarlac. Subsequently, in the Resolution of July
10, 2002, the Court reconsidered the judgment against Sheriff
Leaño
Jr. and merely imposed a fifteen-month suspension upon him since he had
only been remiss in his duties for eight months. On the other hand, the
dismissal of Sheriff Tuquero was maintained considering that he had
assisted
in the implementation of the writ of demolition since November 10,
1994.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sheriff Tuquero is once
again is before the Court seeking reconsideration of his dismissal,
reiterating
that he merely assisted the late Sheriff Antonio Leaño Sr. in
executing
the writ of demolition, that he signed the notifications and returns
believing
in god faith that there was nothing wrong in signing them and not
knowing
its legal repercussions, and that the delay from the issuance of the
writ
of demolition to that of the second alias writ of demolition was due to
postponements consented to by complainant. He also argues that he was
not
impleaded in the complaint as shown by the Motion for Clarification
dated
July 16, 2001 of complainant, and, therefore, should not be adversely
affected
by the judgment of the Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The subject motion is
already the third motion for reconsideration filed by Sheriff Tuquero
and
as such, should no longer be entertained for being a prohibited
pleading.
More importantly, the Court has already passed upon the issues and
allegations
raised by him in the Resolution of July 10, 2002. It is likewise too
late
in the day for Sheriff Tuquero to assail his dismissal on the ground
that
he was not named in the complaint. Although not named in the complaint,
he was fully apprised of the charges against him and accordingly,
required
by the Court to comment thereon, to which he complied without pointing
out the alleged defect. Besides, as explained by the Court in its
Resolution
dated July 10, 2002:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
Indeed,
the original complaint filed by Orlando T. Mendoza which is dated
November
21, 1997, unmistakably referred to Atty. Roberto Tuquero; that Sheriff
Rosbert M. Tuquero was not mentioned in the body of the said complaint
but appears in the annexes thereto such as Annex "C," which is a
Sheriff's
Return dated November 10, 1994, stating therein that the lifetime
period
of the writ of demolition had expired because complainant Mendoza, the
attorney-in-fact representative of the plaintiff, requested for the
cancellation
of the demolition set on July 26, 1994 for a possible amicable
settlement,
signed by both respondents sheriff Leaño, Jr. and Tuquero; Annex
"H" which is a second alias writ of demolition, to which is attached a
Notification dated April 1, 1997 addressed to the occupants of the area
subject of the writ of demolition, signed by Antonio V. Leaño,
Jr.
and Rosbert M. Tuquero; Annex "G" which is a Sheriff's Return of
Service
dated April 14, 1997, signed by both respondents sheriffs reporting
that
the second alias writ of demolition was duly served but unsatisfied in
view of the urgent motion for issuance of temporary restraining order
filed
in Civil Case No. 8323; Annex "H" is an Order dated April 18, 1997 of
Judge
Martonino R. Marcos ordering the issuance of a third alias writ of
demolition
to which is attached a notification signed again by both respondents
sheriffs;
Annex "I," a Sheriff's Return dated May 12, 1997, signed by both
respondents
sheriffs reporting that the third alias writ of demolition had already
lapsed, duly served but unsatisfied because the counsel for the
plaintiff,
Atty. Enrico Barin, agreed to the postponement of the demolition upon
request
of the defendants to give them a relocation site pending approval of
the
plaintiff.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the complaint
against
Atty. Tuquero, the Court referred the matter back to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation, report and recommendation
following complainant's insistence that Atty. Tuquero was also
responsible
for the delay. In his Manifestation with Motion for Clarification,
complainant
alleged:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That
complainant
would like to state however, that in my original complaint, it was
Atty.
Roberto Tuquero, who was impleaded as other respondents considering
that
it was he and not his son ROSBERT TUQUERO, who received the money
supposed
to be for the payment of demolition crew and the person to blame for
the
delay in the implementation of the Writ of Demolition;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That even when the
case
was investigated it was respondent Atty. Roberto Tuquero who was
furnished
with notices by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Supreme
Court
x x x;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That in the
decision
rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court, it was ROSBERT TUQUERO, and
not
ATTY. ROBERTO TUQUERO who should be slapped with the said penalty;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That in case the
sanction
was against ROSBERT TUQUERO what will happen to the case against ATTY.
ROBERTO TUQUERO? Is it now considered abandoned or will it be
reinvestigated
anew?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no doubt,
though,
that since both TUQUEROS are equally liable to the acts complained of,
the other Tuquero (Atty. Roberto Tuquero) should be DISMISSED.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 15, 2002,
the
OCA directed Atty. Tuquero to comment on the complaint to afford him
the
right to be heard and to controvert the charges.
In his Comment, Atty.
Tuquero stated:
When our
Office
received a copy of the Writ of Demolition dated June 13, 1994, which
was
issued by the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 11, Tarlac City in
connection
with Civil Case No. 5747, the late Sheriff Antonio Leaño, Sr.
asked
permission from me to handle the implementation of the said writ
because,
according to him, he wanted to help the plaintiff who is his relative.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since then, as the
implementing
sheriff he was the only one who made the necessary arrangement with the
plaintiff about how the demolition will be effected, and he was the
only
one also, who made the follow-ups of needed documents with the MTC as
shown
by the Resolution issued by the Municipal Trial Court, Tarlac
City
x x x, although I came to learn later that he was being
assisted
by my son Sheriff Rosbert M. Tuquero.
The letter
complaint
of Mr. Mendoza shows that the writ of demolition dated 13 June 1994 was
not effected because he gave the defendants who are his relatives a
chance
to settle the case amicably. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Alias writ of
demolition
was not also effected because after its issuance sheriff Antonio
Leaño,
Sr., became sickly and weak. He was hospitalized until he eventually
died
sometime in 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not long
thereafter,
Antonio Leaño, Jr. was appointed to the position of his late
father.
He succeeded the subject writ of demolition. The second Alias writ of
demolition
was issued. According to Sheriff Antonio Leaño Jr. he wanted to
continue the work which was left unfinished by his father.
Since then, I had
no
more knowledge of what happened with the writ.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x (Emphasis
supplied.)
In its Memorandum dated
August 11, 2003, the OCA recommended that Atty. Tuquero be fined in the
amount of P10,000.00, explaining:
Respondent
Atty. Roberto Tuquero, in trying to exculpate himself from liability
for
failure to execute the writ of demolition and execution reasoned that
"Sheriffs
now are no longer deputy Sheriffs. They can now perform their duties
without
prior permission from the Clerk of Court."
We disagree.
That the
writs
of demolition and writ of execution subject matter of the instant
complaint
were issued by the Municipal Trial Court, Tarlac, which as such MTC has
no sheriff to implement the execution of its judgments. As such, the
matter
was referred to the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio
Sheriff,
RTC of Tarlac headed by herein respondent. Respondent Atty. Tuquero
being
the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC, Tarlac, has
general
administrative supervision over the personnel of said office as well as
on matters of execution of judgments of the court. He cannot be allowed
to avoid responsibility relative to the execution of judgment by saying
that after the designation of the sheriff who shall execute the
judgment
"he had no more knowledge of what happened with the writ."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Sheriffs play an
important
part in the administration of justice. As an officer of the court, a
sheriff
is duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance
of his duties (Ayo vs. Violago-Isnani, 308 SCRA 543) and conduct
himself
with propriety and decorum and act above suspicion (Mamanteo vs.
Magumun,
311 SCRA 259). Respondent Atty. Roberto Tuquero fell short of this
duty.
For his neglect of duty in supervising the execution of the judgment in
Civil Case No. 5747, he has exposed himself and his office not to
mention
the entire judiciary to suspicion. He failed to live-up to the
strictest
standard of honesty and integrity in the public service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court finds the
recommendation
of the OCA partly meritorious.
A sheriff is primarily
responsible for the speedy and efficient service of court processes and
writs originating from his office and the branches thereof, and those
that
may be delegated to him from other courts.[2]
Being the then Clerk of Court and ex-officio sheriff of the RTC of
Tarlac,
Atty. Tuquero indeed exercised general administrative supervision over
all court personnel as well as the execution of judgments. However, to
hold Atty. Tuquero equally responsible with Sheriffs Leaño Jr.
and
Tuquero for the delay in the implementation of the writ of demolition
in
Civil Case No. 5747 on the basis of this fact alone would be unfair and
unjust especially since complainant has not demonstrated how he, by
positive
acts or omissions, caused or contributed to such delay. Even,
complainant's
subsequent allegation that Atty. Tuquero was the recipient of money
intended
for the demolition crew was unsubstantiated considering that the
affidavit
dated September 13, 2001 of Rodolfo Cayetano[3]
which complainant submitted is irrelevant to this case. In said
affidavit,
it was alleged that Sheriffs Leaño Jr. and Tuquero, under orders
of Atty. Tuquero, sought and were given P100,000.00 for the costs of
demolition.
It is noted, however, that the acts alleged therein were committed in
connection
with another case, i.e. Civil Case No. 9056, entitled "Rodolfo Cayetano
vs. Jay and Mariquit Flores," which is not involved in the present
administrative
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This notwithstanding,
the Court finds that Atty. Tuquero is administratively liable for
simple
negligence in allowing Sheriffs Leaño Sr. and his son,
Leaño
Jr., to implement the subject writ of demolition. In seeking permission
to handle the execution of the writ of demolition, Sheriff Leaño
Sr. had informed Atty. Tuquero that he wanted to help the plaintiff who
is his relative. With such disclosure, Atty. Tuquero should have
exercised
prudence and circumspection and immediately denied permission to
Sheriff
Leaño Sr. to avoid impropriety and bias in the execution
proceedings.
Worse, after his death, Atty. Tuquero allowed the son, Sheriff
Leaño
Jr., to continue therewith.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Tuquero also informs
the Court that he has compulsorily retired from the service on November
15, 2002. It has been held, however, that retirement of judge or any
judicial
officer from the service does not preclude the finding of any
administrative
liability to which he shall still be answerable.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW THEREOF, the
Motion for Consideration of the Decision/Resolution dated July 10, 2002
of Sheriff Rosbert Tuquero is DENIED for lack of merit. No further
pleadings
shall be entertained respecting this matter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Roberto Tuquero
is found guilty of simple negligence and hereby REPRIMANDED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 96–97.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Resolution dated October 1, 1985, Re: Approving the guidelines and
procedure
in the service and execution of writs and processes in the reorganized
courts.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 104–105.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Lilia vs. Judge Bartolome M. Fanuñal, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1503,
December
13, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |