FIRST DIVISION
GERTRUDES V. VDA.
DE VELAYO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-99-1332
January 17, 2002
-versus-
JOHN C. RAMOS, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 24, ECHAGUE,
ISABELA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
In a sworn letter-complaint
dated February 4, 1998[1]
filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Gertrudes V.
Vda.
de Velayo charged John C. Ramos, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 24, Echague,
Isabela
with Grave Misconduct relative to Civil Case No. Br. 24-0070, allegedly
committed thus:
After harvesting the
palay from an agricultural land subject of a civil case pending with
the
Court of Appeals, said Sheriff forcibly took TEN (10) cavans of palay
on
November 18, 1997, sold it, received the proceeds and misappropriated
for
his personal use and benefit to the amount of P2,612.00. This amount
should
have been deposited in court on November 18, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
But, the sheriff did
not deposit it in court per certification of the Clerk of Court dated
December
10, 1997.cralaw:red
After I have complained
to the Court of this misappropriation by the sheriff, he (Sheriff
Ramos)
made it appear that Sheriff Ramos delivered the P2,612.00 representing
proceeds of Ten (10) Cavanes on the same day December 10, 1997. This is
not true because when I complained to the court against the sheriff on
the Ten (10) Cavanes worth P2,612.00, the court issued Annex "B" [to
the
effect] that the sheriff did not deposit it. He deposited it only after
I have complained. The misappropriation was already committed a long
time.[2]
Respondent filed his
answer[3]
on June 10, 1998. He explained that complainant was one of the
plaintiffs
in Civil Case No. Br. 24-0070 entitled "Spouses Horace Velayo and
Gertrudes
Velayo v. Andres Guillermo, et al.," filed before the RTC, Branch 24,
Echague,
Isabela. The court decided the case against plaintiffs, ordering them
to
vacate the land subject thereof and to restore its possession to
defendants.
Plaintiffs were likewise ordered to deliver the landowner's share of
the
rice harvested on the subject land from 1981 until the defendants shall
have been restored to its possession. Thereafter, plaintiffs appealed
to
the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to file
their brief. Appellants then filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme
Court, which was likewise dismissed.cralaw:red
Complainant filed a
petition for annulment of the said decision with the Court of Appeals.
Hence, the RTC, Branch 24 of Echague, Isabela directed the parties to
refrain
from entering and/or cultivating any portion of the land subject of the
case during the pendency of the petition.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, it appears
that complainant hired workers to enter the land subject of the case
and
to plant palay thereon. Thus, defendant Andres Guillermo filed a
special
civil
action for indirect contempt against her. During the hearing of the
case
for contempt, the court issued an order enjoining the parties to
strictly
adhere to their agreement, and directed the Deputy Sheriff to closely
manage
and supervise the reaping and threshing of the standing crop and
thereafter
to deposit with the Court the landowner's share.cralaw:red
On November 17, 1997
respondent Deputy Sheriff learned that complainant's hired workers were
harvesting the palay on the subject land. At the ricefield, he saw one
of the hired workers loading palay on the hand tractor and two (2)
tricycles.
After the hired workers left, respondent and his men found that there
were
still ten (10) sacks of palay left behind, so they delivered the same
to
a nearby grain dealer for deposit. However, since the palay was still
wet,
respondent decided to accept the amount of P2,612.00 as payment for the
wet palay. He then prepared and filed his partial Sheriff's return on
the
implementation of the Court Order.[5]
On November 27, 1997,
respondent returned to the rice field to supervise the harvesting of
the
remaining palay but noticed that the grains were still unripe, hence,
he
postponed the harvesting until the following week. On December 3, 1997,
respondent went back to the rice field and saw that the carabaos had
destroyed
and ate the standing crops. In the afternoon of December 10, 1997, he
deposited
the amount of P2,612.00 with the court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the basis of the
foregoing, respondent refutes complainant's allegation that he forcibly
took the ten (10) cavans of palay. He took the same believing that it
was
his duty to do so because he perceived that the complainant was
determined
to violate the order of the Court by not giving any landowner's share
of
the rice harvest.[6]
In the meantime, respondent
compulsorily retired from service effective December 14, 1998.[7]
In his letter dated June 28, 1999,[8]
he requested for the release of his retirement benefits subject to the
retention of the amount of P20,000.00 to answer for whatever liability
that may be imposed on him in this administrative case.cralaw:red
The Court, in a Resolution
dated August 17, 1999, granted the request of respondent for the
release
of his retirement benefits but directed the OCA's Financial Management
Office to retain the amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos from
said benefits to answer for whatever liability may be imposed on him.[9]
The Court further resolved to refer the case to Executive Judge
Bonifacio
T. Ong, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela, for
investigation,
report and recommendation.[10]
During the pendency
of the investigation, however, complainant executed an Affidavit of
Desistance
dated September 24, 1999[11]
declaring, among others, that she had already pardoned respondent for
what
he had done, and that she was now desisting from further prosecuting
the
case against him.cralaw:red
On October 12, 1999,[12]
Executive Judge Bonifacio T. Ong submitted his report wherein he
recommended
the dismissal of the case against respondent. He found that there was
no
misappropriation of the money, legally speaking, because respondent
Ramos
was able to account or deposit the said sum of money in court before
the
complaint was filed. Furthermore, respondent, as Deputy Sheriff, was
authorized
by the court to closely manage and supervise the reaping and threshing
of the standing crops and thereafter to deposit with the court the
landowner's
share.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appearing from the
report of the Executive Judge that no formal investigation was
conducted
in view of the execution of the affidavit of desistance of complainant,
a Resolution dated February 8, 2000[14]
was issued referring the case to the Executive Judge for a more
thorough
investigation.cralaw:red
In his investigation
report dated June 2, 2000,[15]
Executive Judge Ong recommended the imposition of a fine of Two
Thousand
(P2,000.00) Pesos upon respondent for his delay in depositing with the
court the amount of P2,612.00 representing the value of ten (10) cavans
of palay. Executive Judge Ong, however, maintained his finding that
respondent
did not commit misappropriation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the Investigating
Judge.cralaw:red
The administration of
justice is a sacred task and it demands the highest degree of
efficiency,
dedication and professionalism.[16]
In this regard, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, being ranking officers of
the court and agents of the law, must discharge their duties with great
care and diligence. In serving and implementing court writs, as well as
processes and orders of the court, they cannot afford to err without
affecting
adversely the proper dispensation of justice.[17]
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as
agents of the law, high standards are expected of them.[18]
They should always hold inviolate and invigorate the tenet that a
public
office is a public trust.[19]
It must be remembered
that the deposit of items in litigation is not a discretionary matter
and
until the court had made its decision as to the disposal thereof, the
presumption
is that the seized items should remain in the court's custody, hence,
to
be deposited in court, not delivered to any of the parties in the
absence
of a directive to that effect in the seizure order.[20]
Thus, immediately after executing the order, the officer must make a
return
thereon to the clerk or judge of the court from which the order issued,
with a full statement of his proceedings under the order and a complete
inventory of the property attached.[21]
In fact, Section 6, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states
that:
Sheriff's return. After
enforcing the writ, the sheriff must likewise without delay make a
return
thereon to the court from which the writ issued, with a full statement
of his proceedings under the writ and a complete inventory of the
property
attached, together with any counter-bond given by the party against
whom
the attachment is issued, and serve copies thereof on the applicant.
(emphasis
ours)
Sheriffs, as public
officers are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to
perform
the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of
their
ability. They are bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the
performance
of their official duties particularly where the rights of individuals
may
be jeopardized by their neglect.[22]
It must be borne in mind that the conduct required of court personnel
must
be beyond reproach and must always be free from suspicion that may
taint
the judiciary.[23]
It is therefore incumbent upon every member of the judiciary family to
work hand in hand in restoring and upholding, rather than destroying,
the
integrity of the courts to which they belong.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There can be no question
that the act of respondent in tardily depositing with the court the
proceeds
of the ten (10) cavans of palay harvested on November 18, 1997[25]
is deserving of reproof. Worse, respondent attempted to cover for his
lapse
by making it appear that he immediately deposited the same on December
10, 1997,[26]
when the clerk of court had earlier issued a certification stating that
he had not deposited the money.[27]
Respondent, therefore, failed to live up to the standards set for court
personnel, and conducted himself in a manner prejudicial to the service.[28]
Thus:
Time and again, we have
emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility which court personnel
are
saddled with in view of their exalted positions as keepers of public
faith.
They must be constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety,
misdeed
or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided.
As we have held in the case of Mendoza vs. Mabutas,[29]
this Court condemns and would never countenance such conduct, act or
omission
on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice
which
would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even
just
tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Canlas v. Balasbas,[31]
the Court held:
At the grassroots of
our judicial machinery, sheriffs and their deputy sheriffs are
indispensably
in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should be
geared
towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the
image
of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official
or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat from the judge to
the
least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative
sacred
duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and
standing
as a temple of justice.cralaw:red
The sheriff is a court
officer primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of
all
court processes and writs originating from his court and the branches
thereof
and those that may be delegated to him by other courts.[32]
As an officer whose duties form an integral part of the administration
of justice, a sheriff and his deputies may be properly dismissed,[33]
fined,[34]
or suspended[35]
from office by this Tribunal, in the exercise of its administrative
supervision
over the judicial branch of the government, for actions committed in
violation
of the Rules of Court which impedes and detracts from a fair and just
administration
of justice.[36]
Given the prevailing facts of the case, and considering further that
the
incident appears to be the first offense of respondent during his stint
in the Judiciary, the Court considers the recommended sanction
appropriate
for respondent's misdeed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, respondent Sheriff IV John C. Ramos is hereby FINED
the amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos, the said sum to be
deducted
from the Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos ordered retained by the
OCA-Financial
Management Office out of the retirement benefits accruing to him. The
remainder
thereof shall be released to respondent upon finality of this Decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),
Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., pp. 5-8
[4]
Id., pp. 9-10.
[5]
Id., p. 11.
[6]
Id., pp. 7-8.
[7]
Id., p. 13.
[8]
Id., p. 16.
[9]
Id., p. 21.
[10]
Id., p. 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., p. 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., pp. 25-26.
[13]
Id., p. 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., p. 40.
[15]
Id., pp. 46-48.
[16]
Contreras v. Mirando, 280 SCRA 608, 610 [1997].
[17]
Magat v. Pimentel, 346 SCRA 153, 159 [2000]; Ignacio v. Payumo, 344
SCRA
169, 172 [2000].
[18]
Llamado v. Ravelo, 280 SCRA 597 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Ventura v. Concepcion, 346 SCRA 14, 18 [2000].
[20]
Onquit v. Binamira-Garcia, 297 SCRA 354 [1998].
[21]
Pecson v. Sicat, Jr., 298 SCRA 122, 129-130 [1998], citing Section 6,
Rule
57, Rules of Court.
[22]
Pecson v. Sicat, Jr., supra, at 131.
[23]
Abanil v. Ramos, Jr., 346 SCRA 20, 24 [2000].
[24]
Contreras v. Mirando, supra., at 611.
[25]
Rollo, p. 3, Annex A.
[26]
Ibid., p. 2, Annex C.
[27]
Id., p. 3. Annex B.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Dionisio v. Gilera, 312 SCRA 287 [1999].
[29]
223 SCRA 411 [1993], citing Sy v. Academia, 198 SCRA 705 [1991].
[30]
Loyao, Jr. v. Armecin, 337 SCRA 47, 52 [2000].
[31]
337 SCRA 41, 46 [2000], citing Vda. de Abellera v. Dalisay, 268 SCRA
64,
67 [1997].
[32]
V.C. Ponce Co., Inc. v. Eduarte, 343 SCRA 445, 459 [2000].
[33]
Araza v. Garcia, et al., 325 SCRA 1 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
OCA v. Cabe, 334 SCRA 348 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Gomez v. Concepcion, 331 SCRA 503 [2000]; Sebastian v. Valino, 224 SCRA
256 [1993].
[36]
Re: Danilo Cunanan, 238 SCRA 421 [1994], citing Hipolito v. Mergas, 195
SCRA 6 [1991]. |