EN BANC
FILOMENA MENESES,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-04-1768
February 11, 2004
-versus-
ALBERTA S.
ZARAGOZA,
SHERIFF III,
MeTC, BRANCH 45,
PASAY CITY,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
PER
CURIAM:
This is a Complaint
filed by Filomena Meneses against Albert S. Zaragoza, Sheriff III of
the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, Pasay City, charging him with
dereliction
of duty and incompetence relative to Civil Case No. 963-98, entitled
“Filomena
Meneses vs. Romeo Sucgang.”
Complainant alleged
that respondent failed to comply with the trial court’s Writ of
Execution
and Demolition Order, despite the fact that he demanded from her the
amount
of P30,000 purportedly to defray demolition expenses.cralaw:red
In his Comment dated
March 13, 2002, respondent denied having received the amount of P30,000
and averred the following defenses:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
5. That I
take
this opportunity to point out this early the high improbability of even
the assertions of the alleged witness of Mrs. Meneses who stated under
oath “na noong Setyembre 20, 2001 bandang ika-sampu ng umaga nanduon
ako
sa dulo ng bahay ni Filomena Meneses. At may dumating na sheriff
na ang pangalan ay Albert Zarago[z]a. Siya ay humingi kay
Filomena
Meneses ng panggastos sa pagpapaalis kay Romeo Sucgang ng halagang
P30,000.00.
At nakita ko rin na ibinigay ni Filomena Meneses ang makapal na pera na
tig-limang daang piso. Binilang muna ni Albert Zarago[z]a ang
pera
bago inilagay sa waller niya.” This is a bare faced lie because
of
the impossibility of putting in a wallet such big amount which is
certainly
bulky;
6. As to the
statement
of Mrs. Meneses and her witness that I received the money from her on
September
20, 2001, the same is likewise incredible as it is inconsistent with
the
records of the case as how could I ask money from her then in order to
demolish the house of Romeo Sucgang when the Order of the Court
directing
the demolition was only issued on November 26, 2001. The said
Order
was issued on November 26, 2001 and I immediately served the notice of
demolition. Unfortunately, the house was always closed at the
time.
On the said day, Mrs. Meneses went to out Office and told me that
somebody
was in the house of Mr. Sucgang. As my blood pressure on that day
was unstable, I asked our Process Server to serve the Notice but
unfortunately,
when our Process Server served the same, nobody was inside the subject
house. I was not able to immediately enforce the Writ because my
doctor advised me to lie low on my activities because my blood pressure
then was unstable for which reason I was always not available.[1]
On the recommendation
of the Court Administrator, this Court referred the case to the
Executive
Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City for investigation,
report and recommendation.[2]chanrobles virtual law library
In his Investigation
Report dated November 20, 2002, Executive Judge Pedro B. Corales
disclosed
that:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x.
Complainant, FILOMENA
MENESES, (MENESES, for brevity), is the plaintiff in Civil Case No.
963-98,
entitled “FILOMENA MENESES v. ROMEO SUCGANG,” for ejectment that was
raffled
to Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 45, Pasay City presided by HON.
JUDGE
ZENAIDA G. LAGUILLES; whereas, respondent ALBERT S. ZARAGOZA,
(ZARAGOZA,
for brevity), is assigned as Sheriff III of said court.cralaw:red
On 29 March 1999, JUDGE
LAGUILLES decided in favor of MENESES. The dispositive portion of
the Decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant
ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under him to:
1.
Vacate
the aforementioned property described as Lot 24, Block 15 located at
1821
Tramo Street, Pasay City;
2. Pay
fair
rental on the subject lot pegged at the rate of P1,500.00 a month from
September 15, 1990 until the property shall have been actually vacated;chanrobles virtual law library
3. Pay
attorney’s
fees in the amount of P10,000.00; and
4. Pay
the
cost of the suit.”
SUCGANG, the defendant
in the ejectment case, appealed the adverse decision to the RTC.
The RTC affirmed en toto the decision of the MeTC. SUCGANG, not
satisfied
with the decision of the RTC, went to the Court of Appeals and finally
to the Supreme Court. However, the appellate courts dismissed his
petitions.
In the meantime, during
the pendency of the appeal, SUCGANG posted a supersedeas bond for One
Hundred
Seventy-Eight Thousand (P178,000.00) Pesos.cralaw:red
On 13 April 2000, JUDGE
LAGUILLES, granted the motion of MENESES for the issuance of a writ of
execution to release the supersedeas bond posted by the defendant in
favor
of the plaintiff in the total amount of One Hundred Seventy-Eight
Thousand
(P178,000.00) Pesos (Annex “A,” complainant’s memorandum).cralaw:red
This Order was not executed
because SUCGANG appealed to the Court of Appeals where the records of
the
case were elevated.cralaw:red
On 02 July 2001, JUDGE
LAGUILLES reiterated the Order dated 13 April 2000, (Annex “B,”
complainant’s
memorandum).cralaw:red
On 16 July 2001, MENESES,
through her counsel, filed an “Ex-Parte Motion To Appoint A Special
Sheriff”
(Annex “D,” complainant’s memorandum), alleging among others that:chanrobles virtual law library
“That the
sheriff
assigned to this Honorable Court appears to have his hands full with
other
writs of execution previously issued, and most of the time he is not
available,
as he also follows up cases outside Metro Manila. As a
consequence,
he cannot probably follow up the issuance of the Writ of Execution in
the
above-entitled case and the subsequent service of the said writ with
the
bonding company.”
On 24 July 2001,
ZARAGOZA
sent a notice to the insurance company to pay the amount of ONE HUNDRED
SIXTY THOUSAND (P160,000.00) PESOS (Annex “C,” complainant’s
memorandum).
On 11 September 2001,
MENESES received ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND (P160,000.00) PESOS from
SUCGANG,
the supersedeas bond (Exhibit “C”).cralaw:red
On 27 September 2001,
ZARAGOZA submitted his “partial report” (Annex “E,” complainant’s
memorandum)
which reads as follows:
“WHEREAS,
on
September 20, 2001, the undersigned Sheriff served the copy of Writ of
Execution and Notice to vacate giving the defendant to vacate the
premises
subject of this case within five days to voluntarily vacate the
premises.
After the lapse of
five
days the undersigned Sheriff went to the address of the defendant and
was
found out that the said defendant was not able and still refused to
vacate
the premises.”
On 15 November 2001,
JUDGE
LAGUILLES, granted the motion of MENESES for writ of demolition (Annex
“G,” complainant’s memorandum). Accordingly, on 26 November 2001,
the Court issued the writ of demolition.
On 03 February 2002,
MENESES, not assisted by her counsel, filed her “Ex-Parte Motion to
Appoint
Special Sheriff” (Exhibit “B”), alleging among others that:chanrobles virtual law library
“Plaintiff,
to this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the appointment of
special sheriff, in lieu of sheriff Albert Zaragoza, because of the
following
reasons:
That Sheriff
Albert
Zaragoza promised to demolize (sic) the dwelling structure of Romeo
Sucgang
on December 04, 2001, but he failed to do so, in spite of the fact that
he has already received the demolition expenses that he asked for in
the
amount of P30,000.00.
That Sheriff
Albert
Zaragoza again asked for a second chance to carry out the demolition on
January 7, 2002, but as usual he failed to do so. Like the first
promised date, he never went to the site of the demolition together
with
his helper and the policemen to maintain peace and order during the
demolition
job, as he promised.
That my co-owner
of
the lot where the Sucgang structure is located already needs the
place.
So please help me by appointing a special sheriff to do the job of
demolition.”
On the same day, JUDGE
LAGUILLES, in a marginal note, denied the said motion “in view of the
fact
that the Branch Sheriff has already reported for work and that he
promised
to proceed with the demolition within one (1) week from today.”
However, on 11 February
2002, MENESES signed a handwritten document (Exhibit “1”), wherein she
allowed SUCGANG to stay in the premises until 11 March 2002.cralaw:red
Notably, MENESES filed
the motion for appointment of special sheriff and the handwritten
document
after she had filed her letter-complaint against Zarago[z]a with the
Office
of the Court Administrator on 15 January 2002.
THE VERSION AND
EVIDENCE
OF THE COMPLAINANT
THE TESTIMONY
OF MENESES
On 20 September 2001,
at around 10:00 in the morning, Zaragoza passed by her house on his way
to serve a copy of the “notice to vacate” upon SUCGANG and demanded
Thirty
Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos from her. Allegedly, he would use the
money in paying the policemen and other persons during demolition.cralaw:red
In the presence of MARIETTA
VICTORIA, one of her lessees, she initially gave Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00)
Pesos to the respondent, but the latter asked for additional Ten
Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos. Respondent put the money in his clutch
bag.
She has plenty of cash at that time because she had just received the
supersedeas
bond from SUCGANG and she has saving from her other business.chanrobles virtual law library
The respondent repeatedly
promised to her that he would demolish the house of SUCGANG, but he
failed
to do so because he was always out of the office on the pretext that he
was following up other cases in the field or he was sick. It was
only on 04 December 2001 when the “notice of demolition” was finally
served
on SUCGANG, not personally by respondent, but by MANOLO MANUEL GARCIA,
the process server in MeTC, Branch 45.cralaw:red
Respondent served the
“notice to the insurance” only on 24 July 2001, after she filed her
motion
to appoint special sheriff on 17 July 2001.cralaw:red
She has an agreement
with respondent that on 11 September 2001 he would be in his office to
receive for her One Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (P160,000.00) Pesos
from
SUCGANG, but again he was absent. Hence, upon the suggestion of
the
branch clerk of court of MeTC, Branch 45, SUCGANG paid directly to her.cralaw:red
The supersedeas bond
is for One Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand (P178,000.00)
Pesos,
but respondent collected only One Hundred Sixty Thousand (P160,000.00)
Pesos from SUCGANG and did not bother to collect anymore the balance of
Eighteen Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00) Pesos.cralaw:red
She agreed to extend
the demolition of the house of SUCGANG because Zarago[z]a suddenly
appeared
in her house and she could not do anything since the case already
passed
through the barangay.cralaw:red
On 13 March 2002, the
demolition was completed, not by respondent, but by SUCGANG. In
the
process, other portions of the house were also destroyed.cralaw:red
THE TESTIMONY
OF MARIETTA VICTORIA
On 20 September 2001,
at about 10:00 in the morning, she was in the house of MENESES and she
saw her counting money. When she was through, MENESES gave the
money
to Zarago[z]a, which the latter put in his wallet. She heard that
the money would be used for “pagpapaalis kay Romeo Sucgang” and that
respondent
would serve the “notice of demolition.”chanrobles virtual law library
Her affidavit was marked
as (Exhibit “D,” for complainant and Exhibit “2,” for the respondent).
THE VERSION AND
EVIDENCE
OF THE RESPONDENT
THE TESTIMONY
OF ZARAGOZA
He denied that he demanded
Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos from the complainant on 20 September
2001 and alleged that it was impossible for him to ask for demolition
expenses
because there was no demolition order yet at that time.cralaw:red
He pointed out to the
inconsistency between the testimonies of MENESES and MARIETTA VICTORIA
because the former said that respondent put the money in his clutch
bag,
while the latter said he placed it in his wallet.chanrobles virtual law library
He argued that if he
was really interested in demanding money from MENESES, he could have
simply
directed SUCGANG’s lawyer to turnover the One Hundred Sixty
Thousand
(P160,000.00) Pesos directly to him and then deduct the Thirty Thousand
(P30,000.00) Pesos. However, he did not do it and instead he
instructed
SUCGANG to pay directly to complainant.cralaw:red
He explained that he
was busy with the other cases and that in the last quarter of 2001, his
blood pressure was unstable. Accompanied by GARCIA, he tried to
serve
the notice of demolition upon SUCGANG around four (4) times, but
unfortunately,
the latter was always out of the house. Complainant went to his
office
sometime in December 2001 to tell him that SUCGANG was in his house,
but
he was not feeling well, so he requested GARCIA to serve the notice of
demolition.cralaw:red
THE TESTIMONY
OF MANOLO MANUEL GARCIA
On several occasions
during the last quarter of the year 2001, Zarago[z]a requested to
accompany
him in serving writs and processes because he was suffering from
hypertension.
One of the writs they tried to serve was a notice of demolition but
they
failed because SUCGANG was always not around and his house was closed.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x.
Based on the foregoing,
Judge Corales found respondent liable for neglect of duty and unlawful
demand and collection of P30,000 from complainant on the pretext that
it
would be used for demolition expenses. Judge Corales recommended
that respondent be suspended for six months without pay and ordered to
return the amount of P30,000 to complainant.cralaw:red
We concur with the findings
of the investigating judge that there is sufficient evidence that
respondent
committed the acts complained of. However, we disagree with his
conclusion
that respondent is liable for neglect of duty only. To our mind,
respondent is guilty not only of neglect of duty for failing to make a
periodic report on partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs but also of
grave misconduct for unlawfully demanding and collecting P30,000 from
complainant.
Hence, we modify the penalty recommended in the light of the gravity of
the offenses committed.chanrobles virtual law library
Against the strong evidence
of the complainant, respondent could only offer denial. He
declared
that: (a) it was impossible for him to ask for demolition expenses
because
there was no demolition order yet at that time; (b) had he really
wanted
to demand money from complainant, he could have simply directed Sucgang
to turn over to him the amount of the supersedeas bond from which he
could
have deducted the P30,000; (c) the testimonies of Meneses and Victoria
were incredible as they were inconsistent with each other and (d) he
was
not able to serve the writ immediately because his blood pressure was
unstable.cralaw:red
GRAVE MISCONDUCT
When the issue is the
credibility of witnesses, the function of evaluating it is primarily
lodged
in the investigating judge. The rule which concedes due respect,
and even finality, to the assessment of credibility of witnesses by
trial
judges in civil and criminal cases where preponderance of evidence and
proof beyond reasonable doubt, respectively, are required, applies a
fortiori
in administrative cases where the quantum of proof required is only
substantial
evidence.[3]
The investigating judge is in a better position to pass judgment on the
credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them when they
testified
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. The
evaluation
of the testimony of witnesses by the trial judge is accorded the
highest
respect on appeal because the court below had the opportunity to
observe
the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the
truth.
This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a
clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court
plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered,
might
affect the result of the case.[4]
We find no reason to depart from this rule. We find Judge
Corales’
assessment to be a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the
testimonies
of the complainant, the respondent and their respective witnesses.chanrobles virtual law library
While respondent denies
the charge, his unsubstantiated disavowal cannot stand against the
positive
and detailed account of complainant and Marietta Victoria who was
present
when complainant handed the money to him. The pertinent testimony
of complainant is hereunder reproduced:
COURT:
You said that you gave
MANOLO GARCIA a bottle of wine, by the way, did you give MANOLO GARCIA
or the respondent, ALBERT ZARAGOZA, a bottle of wine?
A
I gave a bottle of wine to ALBERT ZARAGOZA, the respondent in this
case,
as my Christmas gift, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Do you remember if you have given him another gift other than a bottle
of wine, Madam Witness.cralaw:red
ATTY. FERRANCULLO:
Leading Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:chanrobles virtual law library
The witness may answer.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
Yes, Sir.cralaw:red
Q
What was that, Madam Witness?
A
It was the month of September 20, sir, when ALBERT ZARAGOZA, went to
the
house and he asked from me the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00),
which according to him will be used for the demolition of the house of
ROMEO SUCGANG. He added that the amount involved is to be used to
the payment of the policemen, in payment for the service of the people
who will demolish, for meals and other expenses, sir.cralaw:red
Q
When he asked for the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) what
did you do next?
A
I gave him sixty pieces of five hundred pesos amounting to Thirty
Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00). By the way, at first I gave him Twenty
Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00), then, he asked for an additional of Ten Thousand
Pesos
(P10,000.00), sir.cralaw:red
ATTY. FERRANCULLO:
May I request the Honorable
Court that the answer of the witness in vernacular be put on record,
Your
Honor. The last part, You Honor.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
“Nagpadagdag po siya
ng sampung libo, sir.”
COURT:
So all in all, the total
amount was Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).chanrobles virtual law library
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
COURT:
Before you continue,
Atty. Martinez, Did you give the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00)
on one occasion only?
WITNESS:
I gave the amount of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in one day only, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q
After giving him the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) what
happened to the promise of the respondent, ALBERT ZARAGOZA, for the
demolition?
ATTY. FERRANCULLO:
I will raise my objection,
Your Honor. No basis. Misleading because of the word
“promise.”
COURT:
Reform your question.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
Now, you said that the sheriff asked you Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00)
as expenses for the demolition.cralaw:red
(follow-up question)
Do you still recall
the date when Sheriff Albert enforced the demolition after you gave him
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).cralaw:red
A
It was supposed to be implemented in September, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x.cralaw:red
Q
After giving the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to Albert
Zaragoza, was the execution executed or the writ executed?
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x.cralaw:red
A
No, Your Honor, It was not immediately executed and in fact, I waited
for
quite sometime.[5]
On cross-examination,
complainant had this to say:
ATTY. FERRANCULLO
Madam witness, you said
part of the THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) you allegedly gave to
the
respondent comes from the rental income, part of it comes from the sale
of M-Gas and part of it comes from the Judgment Debt you received from
Romeo Sucgang, question, how much in this THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00)
comes from the rental income?chanrobles virtual law library
A
The Thirty Thousand Pesos was part of the One Hundred Sixty Thousand
Pesos
(P160,000.00) that I received from Mr. Romeo Sucgang on the month of
September
12, 2000.cralaw:red
Q
So, madam witness, what you declared during the last hearing, which you
confirmed a while ago, when I asked you that this Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) which you allegedly gave to the respondent on September
20,
2001, comes from the rental income, comes from the sale of M-Gas, comes
from the money you received from Romeo Sucgang in connection with the
Ejectment
case you won is not correct, because now, you’re stating that Thirty
Thousand
Pesos comes only from the money you received from Romeo Sucgang on
September
12?
A
No, sir, because the Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) that I gave is
a collation of my savings.cralaw:red
Q
Madam witness, you stated that you gave the respondent Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00) on September 20, 2001, the day you were asked the
said
amount, in what denomination is this P30,00000, by hundreds, or by
thousands?
A
By Five Hundred Pesos (P 500.00) in sixty (60) pieces, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Where were you when you handed the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00)
to the respondent, in particular place, where were you?
A
I was at home, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
A
Was Albert Zaragoza sitting at the time when you allegedly handed to
him
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And upon receipt by the respondent of this alleged amount, Thirty
Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00), what did he do with the amount?
A
I put the money inside the clutch bag, sir.cralaw:red
Q
By the way, this Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), in what container
is it contain (sic), if it (sic) contain (sic) in some container?
A
I counted the money first, before I gave it to Albert Zaragoza, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Did you place it inside the envelope before giving it to the respondent?
A
No, sir, I gave the money personally.cralaw:red
Q
That Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) comes in (sic) your “aparador”
which was inside your house?
A
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
When you allegedly handed to the respondent, did you again count the
same
before the respondent?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q
Did you count it in the presence of respondent Zaragoza?
A
Yes, sir.[6]
Victoria who made the
following declaration under cross-examination substantially
corroborated
Meneses’ testimony:
ATTY. FERRANCULLO:
Q
Madam witness, you were stating that when you went upstairs, you saw
Mrs.
Meneses counting money, how long did you stay upstairs when you went
there
to give Mrs. Meneses this P250.00?chanrobles virtual law library
A
I stayed there for quite sometime because I waited her to finish her
counting.cralaw:red
Q
After she finish (sic) counting the money you turned over to her the
P250.00?
A
Yes, sir.[7]
Investigating Judge
Corales, in respondent to all the allegations of respondent, reported:
The testimonies of MENESES
and MARIETTA VICTORIA that ZARAGOZA demanded and received THIRTY
THOUSAND
(P30,000.00) PESOS from complainant on 20 September 2001 are
credible.
The exhaustive cross-examination made by the counsel for respondent on
these two witnesses did not destroy their credibility. MENESES
explained
very well that she had enough cash at that time because she received
ONE
HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND (P160,000.00) PESOS from SUCGANG on 11 September
2001 and part of it came from her savings. The alleged
inconsistency
pointed out by respondent in the testimony of MARIETTA VICTORIA, i.e.,
whether ZARAGOZA put the money in his wallet or clutch bag was
sufficiently
explained by the witness.chanrobles virtual law library
It is true, as argued
by ZARAGOZA that on 20 September 2001, there is no writ of demolition
yet
to talk about. However, at that time there was already a “notice
to vacate” that respondent was about to serve on SUCGANG.
Complainant
who is not well versed in law was made to believe by respondent that he
needed money for demolition expenses.cralaw:red
The argument of respondent
that if he was interested in demanding money from complainant, he could
have directly deducted Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos from the One
Hundred Sixty Thousand (P160,000.00) Pesos paid by SUCGANG, is
flimsy.
He could not have done it because he was not around when SCGANG came to
his office to pay MENESES. Thus, upon advice of the branch clerk
of court, SUCGANG paid directly to MENESES as shown by the receipt.cralaw:red
Judge Corales further
found that:
In the course of the
investigation of this case, this Office examined the logbook of
attendance,
in MeTC, Branch 45, Pasay City for the year 2001, particularly the last
quarter of the year. This Office noted that there were days when
respondent did not sign the logbook, either in the morning or in the
afternoon.
During those days that he did not sign the logbook, his name was
written
below the names of the other employees with the note – “implementing
writ.”
However, the logbook did not state where and what writs he were then
implementing.chanrobles virtual law library
Further, JUDGE LAGUILLES
in her letter dated 15 May 2002 to the Executive Judge, requested for
the
immediate designation or detail of a sheriff to her sala in view of the
continued absence of ZARAGOZA for almost one (1) month. While it
is true that the absence of respondent as stated in the request of
JUDGE
LAGUILLES referred to another month, nonetheless it shows his attitude
towards the Office.cralaw:red
In view of all the foregoing,
there is no doubt that respondent’s questionable behavior constituted
grave
misconduct.cralaw:red
NEGLECT OF DUTY
Section 14, Rule 39
of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec.
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 in full
within
thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall
report
to the court and state the reason therefore. Such writ shall
continue
in effect during that period within which the 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 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 furnished the parties.
Accordingly, the
sheriff
is mandated to make periodic reports on partially satisfied or
unsatisfied
writs every 30 days, until the judgment is satisfied or its effectivity
expires, so as to apprise the court and the litigants of the
proceedings
taken thereon.chanrobles virtual law library
In this case,
respondent
failed to make the required periodic reports. Although the alias
writ of execution was issued on July 2, 2001, respondent belatedly
submitted
his “partial report” only on September 27, 2001, more than 80 days
after
the issuance thereof. The execution of judgment is the fruit and
end of the suit and is the life of the law. A judgment, if left
unexecuted,
would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.
Worse,
the
parties who are prejudiced tend to condemn the entire judicial system.[8]
Thus, unless restrained by a court order to the contrary, a sheriff
should
always see to it that the execution of judgment is never unduly delayed.
Persons involved in
the administration of justice, like respondent sheriff, ought to live
up
to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public
service
and must at all times be circumspect to preserve the integrity and
dignity
of our courts of justice. They must at all times not only observe
propriety and decorum but must always also be above suspicion.[9]
Respondent’s actuation erodes the faith and confidence of our people in
the administration of justice. He does not deserve to stay in the
service any longer.cralaw:red
In Padilla vs. Arabia,[10]
a deputy sheriff who not only unlawfully received and appropriated
money
paid for the service of the writ of execution but also deliberately and
maliciously prevented the enforcement of the writs of execution was
dismissed
from the service for serious misconduct and dereliction of duty.cralaw:red
In Ong vs. Meregildo,[11]
we held that:
Respondent Sheriff’s
unilaterally and repeatedly demanding sums of money from a
party-litigant
purportedly to defray expenses of execution, without obtaining the
approval
of the trial court for such purported expense and without rendering
that
court an accounting thereof, in effect constituted dishonesty and
extortion.
That conduct, therefore, fell too far short of the required standards
of
public service. Such conduct is threatening to the very existence
of the system of administration of justice.chanrobles virtual law library
Under the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), the penalty for grave
misconduct is dismissal, even for the first offense.[12]Sec. 9 of the said rule likewise provides that the penalty shall carry
with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits
and
retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in the
government
service.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds respondent ALBERTO S. ZARAGOZA, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial
Court
of Pasay City, GUILTY of grave misconduct and simple neglect of duty
and
hereby orders his DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all
retirement
benefits which he may be entitled to, except earned leaves, if any,
with
prejudice to re-employment in the government, including
government-owned
and controlled corporations. Respondent is further ordered to
return
the amount of P30,000 to complainant Filomena Meneses within ten days
from
receipt of notice of this resolution.cralaw:red
This Resolution is immediately
executory.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Resolution dated July 24, 2002, Rollo, p. 19.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Sections 1, 2 and 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
[4]
People vs. Moralde, G.R. No. 131860, January 16, 2003.
[5]
TSN, October 2, 2002, pp. 14-18.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
TSN, October 17, 20002, pp. 9-13.
[7]
TSN, October 22, 2000, p. 17.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Casaje vs. Gatbalite, 331 SCRA 508, 513 [2000], citing Portes vs.
Tepace,
267 SCRA 185, 194 [1997].
[9]
Jerez vs. Paninsuro, 304 SCRA 180, 185 [1999].chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
242 SCRA 227, 233 [1995].chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
233 SCRA 632, 644 [2000].
[12]
Sec. 23, Rule XIV. |