SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-15-3330. July 13, 2015.]
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4048-P)
VITALIANA S. CABRIA, complainant, vs. NILO I. BUENCONSEJO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 3, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 July 2015which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-15-3330 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4048-P) — Vitaliana S. Cabria vs. Nilo I. Buenconsejo, Sheriff IV, Branch 3, Regional Trial Court, Legazpi City, Albay.
Complainant Vitaliana S. Cabria (Cabria), together with her husband, Salvador Cabria, executed a real estate mortgage contract on December 22, 1986 in favor of the Social Security System (SSS). According to the SSS, the spouses Cabria violated the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract as early as 2007. Specifically, the spouses Cabria defaulted in the payment of the installments due and payable to SSS as early as the first quarter of 2007. Due to their default, the SSS foreclosed the mortgage contract sometime in October 2010. 1
After the foreclosure proceedings, respondent Nilo I. Buenconsejo (Buenconsejo), Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Legaspi City, Albay, who was in charge of extrajudicial foreclosures, submitted the following:
a) Notice of Public Auction, dated November 24, 2010, under Mail Registry Receipt No. 64 addressed to Spouses Vitaliana S. Cabria and Salvador Cabria bearing the same date;
b) Certificate of Posting, dated December 1, 2010, under Mail Registry Receipt No. 173;
c) Minutes of Auction, dated December 29, 2010, under Mail Registry Receipt No. 242, January 4, 2011;
d) Certificate of Sale, dated January 4, 2011, as received by the mortgagors [Cabrias] from Mr. Nilo D. Despuig of the SSS, Naga City, on July 22, 2011, as admitted by Vitaliana Cabria in the latter's (d-1) letter to the undersigned, dated July 28, 2011. 2
According to Cabria, she sent two letters, dated March 24, 2011 and July 28, 2011, addressed to Buenconsejo seeking his intercession and help regarding her property. He, however, did not acknowledge, reply to or act on the said two letters in violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 and Section 8 and Section 11 of R.A. No. 9485. 3
On October 30, 2012, Cabria filed a letter-complaint 4 against Buenconsejo before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), and later, on February 7, 2013, she filed her Affidavit of Complaint. 5 Buenconsejo filed his Comment, 6 dated March 13, 2013, to which Vitaliana replied on April 2, 2013. 7 On April 13, 2015, the OCA submitted, its Report and Recommendation 8 on the matter. According to the OCA, CAIHTE
. . . The letters dated 24 March and 28 July 2011 to respondent Buenconsejo sought to defer the sale of the subject property and to be clarified as to why the sale proceeded on 29 December 2010 despite complainant Cabria's previous request to defer further action. However, the fact that said letters were sent to respondent Buenconsejo only after the auction sale and his lack of authority to defer or invalidate the sale do not justify his failure to answer the said letters. Respondent Buenconsejo should have replied to complainant Cabria's letters and informed her of whatever action was taken thereon. It is the obligation of all public officials and employees to respond to all letters promptly as mandated by R.A. No. 6713 and reiterated in Administrative Circular No. 8-99 dated 2 July 1999. 9
Hence, the OCA recommended that (1) the present case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and that (2) Buenconsejo be found guilty of violation of Section 5 (a) of R.A. No. 6713 and be reprimanded with stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar act would be dealt with more severely. 10
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.
Section 5 of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides:
Sec. 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. — In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to:
(a) Act promptly on letters and requests. All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request. aScITE
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions. All public officials and employees must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices and must, at all times, act promptly and expeditiously.
In Administrative Circular No. 08-99, dated July 2, 1999, all officials and employees of the Judiciary were reminded to strictly follow the mandate of the above-quoted provision in this wise:
TO: ALL OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE JUDICIARY
RE: PROMPT ACTION ON LETTERS AND REQUESTS AND PUBLIC'S PERSONAL TRANSACTION
It has been observed by, and brought to the attention of, the Chief Justice that in some instances complaints, letters or requests from the public addressed to the officials of the Judiciary are belatedly answered or not answered at all.
All concerned are reminded of paragraphs (a) and (d) of Section 5 of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which explicitly mandate as follows:
xxx xxx xxx.
The Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the Court Administrator, the Deputy Court Administrators, the Assistant Court Administrators, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, the Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals, and all Executive Judges and clerks of court of all other courts shall see to it that this Circular is immediately disseminated and strictly observed.
This Circular shall take effect immediately.
City of Manila, 02 July 1999.
(Sgd.) HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
Given this, Buenconsejo was expected to respond and explain what had happened to the foreclosure sale.
Buenconsejo, being an officer of the court, should show a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties. Instead, he failed to comply with his duties. A sheriff is a front-line representative of the justice system in this country. Once he loses the people's trust, he diminishes the people's faith in the Judiciary. Every employee of the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty as the image of the Court is mirrored in the conduct, not only of the Justices, but of every man and woman working thereat. Any act which diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary shall not be countenanced. 11 HEITAD
WHEREFORE, Nilo I. Buenconsejo Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Legaspi City, having been found GUILTY of violating Section 5 (a) of R.A. No. 6713, is hereby REPRIMANDED and sternly WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely: (Carpio, J., on official leave, Del Castillo, J.,designated Acting Chairperson and Peralta, J., designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 2087, both dated July 1, 2015;Brion, J., on leave, Bersamin, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2079, dated June 29, 2015).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 63.
2. Id. at 108.
3. Id. at 5.
4. Id. at 4.
5. Id. at 5.
6. Id. at 59-60.
7. Id. at 57-58.
8. Id. at 122-125.
9. Id. at 123.
10. Id. at 124-125.
11. Go vs. Hortaleza, A.M. No. P-05-1971, June 26, 2008.