EN BANC
DALTON SANDOVAL,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-04-1878
(Formerly
OCA-IPI-02-1462-P)
August 31, 2004
-versus-
ALFONSO H. IGNACIO,
JR.,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
PER
CURIAM:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an administrative
complaint against Alfonso H. Ignacio, Jr. (Ignacio), Sheriff IV,
Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Dumaguete City.
In a verified complaint[1]
dated July 29, 2002, Dalton Sandoval (Sandoval) charges Ignacio with
Dereliction
of Duty and Grave Misconduct. Sandoval alleges that he was one of
the substitute plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 245 filed before the
Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Tayasan-Jimalalud, Negros Oriental. Five
(5) years after the case was filed, judgment was rendered in favor of
the
plaintiffs. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MCTC’s decision and
the
same became final and executory. An Order[2]
for the issuance of a Writ of Execution was thereafter issued on July
7,
1995.chanrobles virtual law library
Sandoval attached to
his Verified Complaint a letter[3]
from Ignacio addressed to his counsel requesting money to be used for
the
service of the writ. Although the complaint fails to indicate
whether
Sandoval gave money to Ignacio as requested, Sandoval asserts in his
Memorandum[4]
dated March
25, 2003 that he gave
Ignacio P1,200.00 and that the latter issued him an undated Temporary
Receipt[5]
therefor.cralaw:red
Apparently, the writ
was served on February 9, 1996 but Ignacio was not able to enforce the
writ and judgment was not fully executed. Not having heard from Ignacio
since, Sandoval’s counsel inquired on the status of the case on June
12,
2002 and learned that Ignacio did not file a return of service.
It
was only on June 25, 2002, as certified by the Acting Clerk of Court,[6]
that Ignacio filed a Sheriff Return of Service[7]
dated June 21, 2002, explaining that the writ was not fully satisfied
because
of a possible agreement between the parties. Ignacio
attached
to his return a Manifestation and Motion[8]
also dated June 21, 2002 filed by counsel for the defendants, praying
that
no further action be taken on Civil Case No. 245 until after a decision
in a similar case[9]
involving the same property has been rendered, which Sandoval points to
as evidence of an “unholy alliance” between Ignacio and the defendants’
counsel for the purpose of delaying the enforcement of the writ.cralaw:red
Ignacio filed a Comment[10]
dated October 8, 2002 denying that he failed to serve the Writ of
Execution[11]
and to submit a return therefor. According to him, he filed a
return
on February 9, 1996 handwritten at the bottom the writ itself.
Considering
that the lifetime of writs of execution under the old Rules of Court
was
sixty (60) days, the writ expired on February 25, 1996, as it was
received
by the Office of the Provincial Sheriff on December 27, 1995. The
plaintiffs did nothing to enforce the judgment since then. In
fact,
it was only on March 4, 1999 that Sandoval’s counsel filed a Motion for
Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution, which the court did not act
upon.chanrobles virtual law library
Ignacio admitted writing
a letter to Sandoval’s counsel asking for money to defray the expenses
of execution. However, he did not say if he received the requested
amount
of money. However, he denied colluding with counsel for the
defendants
to delay the enforcement of the writ.cralaw:red
In the Agenda Report[12]
dated December 4, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
concluded
that the respondent sheriff complied with the provisions of the old
Rules
of Court concerning the service of writs of execution and filing of
return
therefor. The OCA, however, found him guilty of misfeasance in
office
for failure to comply with Section 9, Rule 141 of the old Rules of
Court
on the procedure for the implementation of writs and other court
processes,
and accordingly recommended that he be suspended for a period of one
(1)
week without pay.cralaw:red
In a Resolution[13]
dated 15 January 2003, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the
Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City for investigation,
report
and recommendation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records.chanrobles virtual law library
Pursuant to this directive,
Executive Judge Eleuterio E. Chiu (Executive Judge Chiu) submitted a
Report
and Recommendation[14]
dated April 11, 2003 finding that Ignacio acted negligently and
irregularly
when:
(a) He did not submit
his sheriff’s return of service within sixty (60) days from December
27,
1995 or at most, within a reasonable time after he served it on Feb. 9,
1996, but only on June 25, 2002, after he was prodded to submit his
return;
b) He asked for and
received P1,200.00 from complainant without issuing official receipt
therefor,
without depositing it with the Clerk of Court, and without making a
liquidation
and accounting thereof even up to the present.cralaw:red
He thus violated Sec.
11, Rule 39 and Sec. 7, Rule 141, Old Rules of Court and of Sec. 113,
Art.
3, Chapter 5, National Accounting and Auditing Manual for failure to
issue
official receipt for money collected.[15]
Accordingly, Executive
Judge Chiu recommended that Ignacio be suspended for a period of three
(3) months without pay with a stern warning that any further infraction
of the Rules of Court shall be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
The Court, in its Resolution[16]
dated September 22, 2003, referred Executive Judge Chiu’s report to the
OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. Pursuant thereto,
the OCA submitted a Memorandum[17]
dated January 8, 2004 adopting the recommendation of Executive Judge
Chiu.chanrobles virtual law library
Significantly, Executive
Judge Chiu’s report varies with the OCA’s Memorandum on the aspect of
whether
Ignacio made a return of service of the writ and filed the same with
the
court as required under Section 11, Rule 39 of the old Rules of
Court.
Executive Judge Chiu completely disregarded Ignacio’s return
handwritten
on the writ itself. Instead, he found that Ignacio made a return
dated June 21, 2002 and filed the same with the MCTC only on June 25,
2002.
On the other hand, the OCA acknowledges that Ignacio made a handwritten
return but that he failed to file the same within the time fixed by the
old Rules of Court. Incidentally, this OCA conclusion
diametrically
contradicts the preliminary finding in its Agenda Report that Ignacio
served
the writ on February 9, 1996, wrote the return on the writ itself and
filed
the same with the court.[18]
Section 11, Rule 39
of the old Rules of Court, provides:
Sec. 11.
Return
of writ of execution.—The writ of execution may be made returnable, to
the clerk or judge of the court issuing it, at any time not less than
ten
(10) nor more than sixty (60) days after its receipt by the officer who
must set forth in writing on its back the whole of his proceedings by
virtue
thereof, and file it with the clerk or judge to be preserved with the
other
papers in the case. A certified copy of the record, in the execution
book
kept by the clerk, of an execution by virtue of which real property has
been sold, or of the officer’s return thereon, shall be evidence of the
contents of the originals whenever they, or any part thereof, have been
lost or destroyed.chanrobles virtual law library
This provision requires
the officer making the return to do two things: 1) to make a return
setting
forth the whole of the proceedings taken by virtue of the writ of
execution;
and 2) to file the same with the clerk of court or the judge who issued
the writ.chanrobles virtual law library
The Note[19]
handwritten with the date “2-9-96,” on the bottom of page 2 of the Writ
of Execution dated July 11, 1995 can be considered a return of the writ
in compliance with the Rules of Court. The fact that Acting Clerk
of Court Emelyn D. Gonzaga (Gonzaga) later issued a Certification[20]
dated July 1, 2002 to the effect that Ignacio filed on June 25, 2002 a
Sheriff Return of Service dated June 21, 2002 does not necessarily
indicate
that no return was made and filed on February 9, 1996 as claimed by
Ignacio
and shown on the writ itself. Notably, the handwritten return is
even authenticated by Gonzaga’s signature superimposed thereon.[21]
Nonetheless, we find
that the Writ of Execution was returned unsatisfied due to Ignacio’s
fault.
Ignacio testified during his direct examination, thus:
Q: Now you said you
executed or served the writ, what was the result of the writ?chanrobles virtual law library
A: The partial execution
was served and in fact, I ordered the defendants to vacate the premises
giving them a grace period and I was with one police officer of
Tayasan.
After that, I made a return at the lower portion of the writ.cralaw:red
x
x x
Q: And after the execution
on February 9, 1996, what happened?
A: The full implementation
of the Writ of Execution was not served because the Motion to Quash
Writ
of Execution and several other Motions were unresolved by the Court up
to the present time.[22]chanrobles virtual law library
Firstly, Ignacio has
no discretion, much less authority, to grant as he did in the
handwritten
note,[23]
the defendants a grace period within which to comply with the Writ of
Execution.
He is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter.[24]
In this case, the judgment ordered the defendants to vacate the
litigated
area; to pay reasonable monthly rentals from the time judgment was
rendered
until the plaintiffs shall have been restored to their actual and
physical
possession of the land in question; and to pay the plaintiffs the sum
of
P3,000.00 as attorney’s fees, without mention of any grace period to be
accorded the defendants.cralaw:red
Secondly, assuming that
there were unresolved motions relative to Civil Case No. 245, Ignacio
was
still duty bound to execute the writ according to its mandate, in the
absence
of a restraining order or any instructions to the contrary.[25]
Of paramount significance
is the fact that Ignacio received the amount of P1,200.00 from Sandoval
without issuing an official receipt therefor, depositing the amount
with
the clerk of court and making a liquidation or accounting thereof up to
the present.chanrobles virtual law library
The rule requires the
sheriff executing writs or processes to estimate the expenses to be
incurred.
Upon the approval of the estimated expenses, the interested party has
to
deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court and Ex-officio Sheriff. The
expenses shall then be disbursed to the executing Sheriff subject to
his
liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the
process
or writ. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party who made the
deposit.[26]
In this case, there
is nothing on record to indicate that Ignacio made an estimate of the
expenses
to be incurred for execution and had the estimate approved by the
court.
What does appear on record is the fact that he asked for and received
the
amount of P1,200.00 from Sandoval for which he issued a mere
handwritten
Temporary Receipt.[27]
Neither does it appear that he deposited the amount with the Clerk of
Court
and Ex-officio Sheriff and rendered an accounting thereof.cralaw:red
The sheriff’s conduct
of unilaterally 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 an
accounting
therefor constitutes dishonesty and extortion and falls short of the
required
standards of public service. Such conduct threatens the very existence
of the system of administration of justice.[28]
Ignacio’s issuance of
a handwritten Temporary Receipt also constitutes a violation of Section
113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing
Manual
which provides “that no payment of any nature shall be received by a
collecting
officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in
acknowledgment
thereof.”
In view of the foregoing,
the recommended penalty of suspension for three (3) months without pay
is evidently too light. In Patangan vs. Concha and Padilla vs.
Arabia,
supra, involving similar infractions by a sheriff, we imposed the
penalty
of dismissal from service on the respondent.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, respondent
Sheriff IV Alfonso H. Ignacio, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED from the service
for grave misconduct and dereliction of duty, with forfeiture of all
retirement
benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of government
including government-owned or controlled corporations.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide,
C.J., Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Corona,
Callejo,
Sr.,Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ.
,
concur.
Puno, J., on official leave.
Panganiban, J., on official
leave.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
J., on official leave.
Carpio, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]Rollo,
pp. 1-9, with Annexes.
[2]Id.
at 5; Annex “A” of the Verified Complaint.
[3]Id.
at 6; dated October 4, 1995; Annex “B” of the Verified Complaint.
[4]Id.
at 70-73.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]A
piece of paper entitled Temporary Receipt signed by Ignacio is
attached
as p. 50 of the Rollo. Its full text reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
TEMPORARY
RECEIPTchanrobles virtual law library
RECEIVED
THE AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AS PARTIAL PAYMENT (P1,200.00)
FOR
THE EXECUTION OF CIVIL CASE ENTITLED SANDOVAL VERSUS ALBERTO, FOR
EJECTMENT.chanrobles virtual law library
RECEIVED
BY:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
(SGD.)
ALFONSO H. IGNACIO, JR.
Sheriff
IVchanrobles virtual law library
RTC,
Br. 44chanrobles virtual law library
[6]See
Certification dated July 1, 2002; Annex “E” of the Verified Complaint;
Rollo, p. 9.
[7]Supra,
note 1 at 7; Annex “C” of the Verified Complaint.
[8]Id.
at 8; Annex “D” of the Verified Complaint.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]Civil
Case No. 99-031-T.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]Supra,
note 1 at 13-18.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]Id.
at 20; Annex “2” of the Comment.
[12]Id.
at 27-29.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]Id.
at 30.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]Id.
at 139-143.
[15]Id.
at 143.
[16]Id.
at 166.
[17]Id.
at 167-170.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]Supra,
note 12 at 28; Agenda Report dated December 4, 2002.
[19]
The text of the note reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
RECEIVED
COPY OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION, BUT REFUSED TO SIGN, THEY ARE GOING TO
THEIR
LAWYER GIVING THEM (DEFENDANTS) NAMELY: ESMERALDA ALBERTO YURONG
AND CONSUELO ALBERTO BOTH LIVING IN THE LAND IN QUESTION TO VACATE THE
PREMISES WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION.
WITNESSED BY SPO1 DOLGER BERMUDO OF TAYASAN POLICE STATION.
2-9-96.chanrobles virtual law library
Rollo,
p. 21; Annex 2 of the Comment.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]Supra,
note 1 at 9; Annex “E” of the Verified Complaint.
[21]Id.
at 21.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]TSN
dated March 19, 2003, pp. 41-42; Rollo, pp. 120-121.
[23]Supra
note 19.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]Padilla
vs. Arabia, A.M. No. 93-774, March 8, 1995, 242 SCRA 227.
[25]Patangan
vs. Concha, A.M. No. R-699-P, August 7, 1987, 153 SCRA 30.
[26]Bercasio
vs. Benito, A.M. No. P-95-1158, July 14, 1997, 275 SCRA 405, citing
Section
9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
[27]Supra,
note 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]Ong
vs. Meregildo, 233 SCRA 632, cited in Bercasio v. Benito, supra. |