ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ No. 16-1868. March 2, 2016.](Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-2550-MTJ)
CRISTITA ABOGADYE, petitioner, vs. ACTING JUDGE JULIETO N. BAJAN AND SHERIFF III TYRONE SANTIAGO G. ALAAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 02 March 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. MTJ No. 16-1868 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-2550-MTJ —Cristita Abogadye v. Acting Judge Julieto N. Bajan and Sheriff III Tyrone Santiago G. Alaan)
In a complaint-affidavit, 1 dated November 8, 2012, filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Cristita Abogadye (complainant) charged Acting Presiding Judge Julieto N. Bajan (respondent judge) and Sheriff III Tyrone Santiago G. Alaan (respondent sheriff), both of Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Surigao City, Surigao del Norte (MTCC), with Failure to Execute Judgment in the case entitled Abelia R. Angeles v. Maximo and Nita Villanueva and docketed as Civil Case No. 7846.
Complainant's Position
Complainant claimed to be the duly constituted attorney-in-fact of Abelia R. Angeles (Angeles), the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 7846, a case for unlawful detainer, damages and attorney's fees. 2 Complainant alleged that on April 11, 2011, the MTCC issued an order directing the defendants therein, Maximo and Nita Villanueva (the Villanuevas), to vacate the subject property and to pay the unpaid rentals, attorney's fees and litigation expenses. On May 7, 2012, or after more than a year from the promulgation of the said order, the Clerk of Court issued the Writ of Execution. 3
On May 9, 2012, respondent Sheriff issued the Notice 4 informing the parties of the writ of execution and giving the Villanuevas until May 23, 2012 to vacate the subject property. On May 23, 2012, at around lunch time, respondent sheriff went to complainant's house and demanded that he and his companions be served with food before the writ would be implemented. Complainant acceded and brought respondent sheriff and his companions to a nearby restaurant. In spite of giving them food and complainant paying all the legal fees, the writ remained unenforced. Respondent sheriff and his companions then just disappeared from the restaurant. 5
Notwithstanding the issuance of the writ, the Villanuevas still moved for reconsideration with notice of withdrawal of notice of appeal and prayer to defer the issuance of writ of execution. 6 In its July 27, 2012 Order, 7 respondent judge denied the said motion stating, among others, that the same was filed by the Villanuevas as a "ploy to delay the execution of judgment." In the same order, respondent judge, directed the issuance of a writ of execution of the judgment. Complainant viewed this as an error considering that as early as May 7, 2012, a writ of execution had already been issued.
Complainant also claimed that instead of ensuring the writ's implementation, respondent judge issued another order, 8 dated August 23, 2012, setting a hearing on October 25, 2012 for the purpose of calling to the witness stand the present administrator of the subject property. To her, respondent judge defied a basic rule of procedure considering that the case had long been settled and only the enforcement thereof remained.
Position of Respondent Judge
Respondent judge contended that the charges against him arose from issues that were judicial in nature. Claiming that there was no perfect judge and that his mistake was a mere error in judgment, the proper recourse should have been an appeal or a petition for certiorari and not through this administrative case. 9
Position of Respondent Sheriff
Respondent sheriff denied the allegations, explaining that on May 9, 2012, he served a notice to vacate on the Villanuevas. Upon reaching the premises of the subject property on May 23, 2012, however, no one was around and it was locked. He then informed complainant about the situation and directed her to advise her lawyer so that an action could be taken. Respondent sheriff also denied having lunch with complainant and that he even politely declined an invitation adding that he did not fraternize with litigants as he did not want to give the impression of partiality. He also justified his failure to execute the writ explaining that he had to wait for the resolution of the motion filed by the Villanuevas seeking to set aside or recall the writ of execution. To him, he was merely being prudent and in good faith. 10 CAIHTE
Additionally, respondent sheriff averred that a reading of the complaint showed that it was directed only against respondent judge, and that he was never furnished a copy of the Special Power of Attorney supposedly executed by Angeles. 11
The Findings and Recommendations of the OCA
In its Recommendation, 12 dated October 27, 2015, the OCA found respondent judge liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure and respondent sheriff for Simple Neglect of Duty. Thus:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
(1) the instant administrative complaint against Acting Presiding Judge Julieto N. Bajan, and Sheriff III Tyrone Santiago G. Alaan, both of Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Surigao City, Surigao del Norte, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
(2) respondent Judge Julieto N. Bajan be found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure and be FINED in the amount of P21,000.00, payable within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with severely; and
(3) respondent Sheriff Tyrone Santiago G. Alaan be found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and be FINED in the amount of P5,000.00, payable within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with severely by the Court.
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA that respondent judge was liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure and respondent sheriff was liable for Simple Neglect of Duty.
On Respondent Judge's Ignorance
Basic is the rule that not every judicial error bespeaks of ignorance of the law or of the rules and, when committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanction. This applies only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgement. When the law or the rule is so elementary, however, not to be aware of it or to act contrary thereto, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
In this case, respondent judge's act of setting the case for hearing on the motion for reconsideration in spite of the fact that the judgment had already become final and executory with a corresponding writ of execution issued on May 7, 2012, as well as his issuance of another writ of execution just barely two months after the first writ was issued and still subsisting, is by itself, a manifestation of his gross ignorance of elementary rules of procedure. Even law students are supposed to be aware of the dictum that once final and executory, a judgment can no longer be modified as it has reached a state of perpetual immutability. Not only does it reflect his patent ignorance of basic rules, but it also bares his incompetence.
Thus, respondent judge should be reminded that competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays such utter lack of awareness with the rules, he contributes to the erosion of the public's confidence in the judiciary. Judges must at all times be conversant with the law and basic legal principles — all of which must be at the palm of one's hands. The public expects much of him.
Accordingly, this Court is left with no choice but to impose upon respondent judge appropriate disciplinary sanctions. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court is classified as a serious offense for which the imposable sanction ranges from dismissal from the service to suspension from office, and a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. The OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P21,000.00. The Court, however, finds it appropriate to increase the amount to P30,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with severely by the Court.
On respondent sheriff's failure to
Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel commands court personnel to perform their official duties properly and with diligence at all times. As the image of the courts, being administrators and dispensers of justice, is not only reflected in their decisions, resolutions or orders but also mirrored in the conduct of court personnel, it is incumbent upon every court personnel to observe the highest degree of efficiency and competency in his or her assigned tasks. The failure to meet these standards warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. 13
These administrative sanctions vary depending on the nature of the acts committed. In this case, it is undisputed that respondent sheriff failed to implement the writ of execution for unjustifiable reasons. As sheriff, he ought to know that he has a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch. 14 Even if a motion was pending before the trial court, he should have still proceeded to implement the writ because his duty as a sheriff is a mandatory and ministerial function, devoid of discretion and more importantly, burdened with the responsibility of adhering to high ethical standards to preserve the courts' good name and standing. 15 Respondent sheriff must be reminded that when writs are placed in his hands, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with his mandate. Unless restrained by a court order, he should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed. 16 Here, no such order was issued by the trial court. DETACa
Accordingly, the Court finds respondent sheriff liable for simple neglect of duty. This is in consonance with the Court's ruling in Ligaya V. Reyes v. Mario Pablico, 17 where simple neglect of duty has been reiterated to mean as the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference.
Simple neglect of duty under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. 18 The OCA, however recommended that respondent sheriff be fined in the amount of P5,000.00 following Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which allowed the imposition of fine instead of the penalty of suspension. The Court disagrees. Respondent sheriff should be meted the penalty of suspension in its minimum period with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with severely.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge Julieto N. Bajan of Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Surigao City, Surigao del Norte, liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, the Court hereby imposes the penalty of FINE in the amount of P30,000.00, payable within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with severely.
Finding respondent Sheriff Tyrone-Santiago G. Alaan of Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Surigao City, Surigao del Norte, liable for Simple Neglect of Duty, the Court hereby imposes the penalty of one (1) month suspension without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar infraction in the future, shall be dealt with severely. (J. Brion on leave)
SO ORDERED." HEITAD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2. Id. at 4-6.
3. Id. at 7.
4. Id. at 8-9.
5. Id. at p. 2.
6. Id. at 22-24.
7. Id. at 10-11.
8. Id. at 12.
9. Respondent Judge's Comment, Rollo, pp. 78-79.
10. Respondent Sheriff's Comment, Rollo, pp. 18-20.
11. Respondent Sheriff's Comment, Rollo, pp. 18-20.
12. Rollo, pp. 80-86.
13. Office of the Court Administrator v. Gaspar, A.M. No. P-07-2325, February 28, 2011.
14. Miranda v. Raymundo, Jr., A.M. No. P-13-3163, December 1, 2014, citing Pesongco v. Estoya, 519 Phil. 226, 241 (2006).
15. Lucas v. Dizon, A.M. No. P-12-3076, November 18, 2014, citing Anico v. Emerson B. Pilipia, etc., A.M. No. P-11-2896, August 2, 2011, 655 SCRA 42.
16. Miranda v. Raymundo, Jr., A.M. No. P-13-3163, December 1, 2014, citing Pesongco v. Estoya, 519 Phil. 226, 241 (2006).
17. A.M. No. P-06-2109, November 27, 2006, citing Dajao v. Lluch, 429 Phil. 620 (2002), further citing Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 415 Phil. 713 (2001).
18. Revised Rules on Administrative Cases, Sec. 46 D (1), Rule 10.