SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3912. June 19, 2019.](Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4877-P)
CHESTER ANG, petitioner, vs.LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 18, TAGAYTAY CITY, CAVITE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3912 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4877-P) — CHESTER ANG versus LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) the complaint of Chester Ang (Ang), coursed through CSC's Contact Center ng Bayan (CCB) hotline, against respondent Laydabell G. Pijana (Sheriff Pijana), Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite. 1 Ang alleged that Sheriff Pijana withheld the release of the certificate of sale despite his compliance with the requirements during the auction sale on December 17, 2015, relative to an extrajudicial foreclosure case, EJF No. TG-15-198 (Chester Barry Ang vs. Leticia Mortel Walsh and Michael John Walsh). 2 HTcADC
In a 1st Indorsement 3 dated March 21, 2017, the OCA referred the said complaint to Sheriff Pijana for comment. In a letter-comment 4 dated April 7, 2017, Sheriff Pijana denied Ang's allegations since it is Diana G. Ruiz, Legal Researcher II and Officer-in-Charge (OIC), who prepares the Certificate of Sale pursuant to Acting Presiding Judge Jaime B. Santiago's Memorandum 5 dated March 3, 2015, relevant portions of which read as follows:
At the conclusion of the second public auction, Sheriff Pijana should advise the winning bidder to pay the docket fee for the issuance of the Certificate of Salewithin ten (10) days from that date. Also, Sheriff Pijana shall now arrange the record of the case, chronologically — numbering/paging each and every page thereof and submit the same to the Officer-in-Charge.
5. Immediately upon receipt, Mrs. Diana Ruiz should check the record submitted to her by Sheriff Pijana and see to it that the same is complete and in order, and if there are lacking documents shall immediately call the attention of Sheriff Pijana for the lacking documents; and
6. Immediately upon payment of the docket fee for the issuance of the Certificate of Sale, Mrs. Diana Ruiz should immediately prepare the Certificate of Sale and submit the same, together with the entire record of the case to the Acting Presiding Judge/Acting Executive Judge for approval. 6 (Emphasis in the original)
Sheriff Pijana also alleged the following: she forwarded the case record to OIC Ruiz in February 2016; however, OIC Ruiz issued a Memorandum 7 dated April 12, 2016 to her, directing her to attach to the case record the return card for the mortgagors, Spouses Walsh; however, another employee, Ms. Angel Arnesto, who receives and keeps the return cards, failed to give the subject return card to her (Sheriff Pijana); thus, in the absence of the subject return card, she attached to the original notice of foreclosure sale on record the registry receipt for Spouses Walsh to prove that the notice was mailed to them; however, when she tried to return the case record to OIC Ruiz, the latter refused to accept the same due to the missing return card. 8 CAIHTE
In a 1st Indorsement 9 dated June 7, 2017, the OCA referred Sheriff Pijana's letter-comment to OIC Ruiz for comment. In a letter-comment 10 dated July 27, 2017, OIC Ruiz alleged the following: on April 12, 2016, she returned the subject case record to Sheriff Pijana for her to attach the return card to show that the required notices were sent to the mortgagors, Spouses Walsh; she recalled that the mortgagee, Ang, went to the court to check the status of his certificate of sale; whenever Ang would visit the court, Sheriff Pijana was not available; she (OIC Ruiz) explained to Ang that the documents must be complete prior to the issuance of the certificate of sale; since March 10, 2017 up to July 27, 2017, which was the date of OIC Ruiz's letter-comment, Sheriff Pijana is not reporting for work; since Sheriff Pijana is the one who handles the extrajudicial foreclosure (EJF) cases, the court is not updated on their status; thus, on April 6, 2017, Judge Santiago issued a Memorandum to Sheriff Pijana, directing her to turn over to her (OIC Ruiz) all EJF case records in her possession within 24 hours; on April 10, 2017, Sheriff Pijana turned over to her the EJF case records, including the subject case, EJF No. TG-15-198, where Sheriff Pijana, without any explanation, still failed to attach the return card for the mortgagors, despite her directive in her Memorandum dated April 12, 2016; sometime in April 2017, when Ang checked the status of his certificate of sale, she informed them of the missing return card and advised them to secure from the post office a certification stating that the mortgagors had received the notice of extrajudicial sale; on May 5, 2017, Ang's representative submitted the said Certification 11 which stated that the mortgagors received the said notice on December 5, 2015; from April 10, 2017 when the subject case record was turned over to her until the issuance of the certificate of sale on June 16, 2017, she proactively worked with the requesting party to fill the gap in the required documentation; Sheriff Pijana is tasked to mail the notices to the parties, yet she says that she is not a custodian of the return card; assuming arguendo that she is not the custodian and that the return card is not available, she should have informed OIC Ruiz or Judge Santiago in order to address the problem immediately.
In a Report 12 dated July 26, 2018, the OCA recommended that Sheriff Pijana be found guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely. 13 As an officer of the court who is expected to act with reasonable dispatch on all matters entrusted to her in order not to delay the administration of justice, the OCA stressed that Sheriff Pijana cannot shift the liability to OIC Ruiz and Ms. Arnesto. 14
As held in the case of Ferrer v. Ubalde, 15 as agents of the law, sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and in this, high standards are expected of them. Under Section 46 (D) (1) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 16 simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. Considering the facts of the case and that this is Sheriff Pijana's first offense, the Court adopts the OCA recommendation of a penalty of fine in lieu of suspension in order to prevent any undue adverse effect on public service that would ensue if work were otherwise left unattended. aScITE
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Laydabell G. Pijana, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite, GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and is hereby FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 7.
2.Id. at 1, 7.
3.Id. at 10.
4.Id. at 13-15.
5.Id. at 18-19.
6.Id. at 19.
7.Id. at 20.
8.Id. at 13-14.
9.Id. at 23.
10.Id. at 24-30.
11.Id. at 38.
12.Id. at 1-3.
13.Id. at 3.
14.Id.
15. A.M. No. P-08-2522, January 22, 2014 (Unsigned Resolution), citing Mariñas v. Florendo, 598 Phil. 322, 330 (2009).
16. CSC Resolution No. 1101502, promulgated on November 8, 2011.