THIRD DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 10-3566-P. April 21, 2014.]
SHIRLEY ESPERO, complainant, vs. WILMAR M. DE VILLA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, IMUS, CAVITE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 21, 2014, which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 10-3566-P (Shirley Espero vs. Wilmar M. De Villa, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Imus, Cavite). — In her letter-complaint 1 dated December 2, 2010, complainant Shirley Espero charged Wilmar M. De Villa, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Imus, Cavite of neglect of duty with the Office of the Court Administrator.
In the decision 2 dated December 9, 2005, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Imus, Cavite found Melania Subong civilly liable to complainant Shirley Espero for P260,000.00. The decision became final and executory. Consequently, Shirley filed a motion for execution of the judgment.
On March 21, 2007, the trial court issued a writ of execution, 3 directing the ex-officio sheriff or his deputies to levy the personal properties of Melania Subong for public auction, the proceeds of which shall serve as satisfaction for Melania's judgment debt. In case the personal properties were insufficient to satisfy the judgment, real properties of Melania may be levied for auction sale.
The writ of execution was raffled to Sheriff De Villa for implementation. However, according to Shirley, he did not perform his duties. She alleged that Sheriff De Villa "ay walang pag-asikaso na matapos ang kaso ni Melania Subong." 4
The Office of the Court Administrator directed Sheriff De Villa to comment 5 on Shirley's letter-complaint.
In his comment, 6 Sheriff De Villa denied that he neglected his duty and that Shirley only filed this administrative case to harass him. He alleged that he received the writ of execution for implementation on March 26, 2007. On March 28, 2007, he served a copy of the writ of execution on Melania Subong together with a copy of a demand for payment. By April 30, 2007, Melania was able to pay a total of P8,500.00 to Shirley.
On May 3, 2007, Sheriff De Villa submitted to the court a sheriff's report, 7 alleging that Melania has paid P8,500.00 out of the P260,000.00. As for the deficiency, he levied several personal properties found in Melania's beauty parlor and sold then at public auction on May 9, 2007. Complainant Shirley was the highest bidder and bought the properties at P7,000.00.
Thereafter, Sheriff De Villa continued demanding payment from Melania for the deficiency amount. He eventually discovered that Melania had been paying directly to Shirley. She allegedly humiliated Melania in front of her customers in her beauty parlor, forcing her to pay Shirley directly. SaITHC
In 2009, Shirley allegedly approached Sheriff De Villa and told him that Melania no longer paid her obligation. Thus, he demanded payment from Melania who did not deny that she was unable to pay due to financial difficulties. On Sheriff De Villa's warning that he would be forced to sell at public auction the properties found in her beauty parlor, Melania explained that she no longer owned the parlor. Thus, he could not levy on the properties.
On March 3, 2009, Shirley wrote to Executive Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr. and the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite. 8 Shirley requested that Sheriff De Villa be replaced by a special sheriff as he was unable to implement the writ of execution.
On March 23, 2009, Shirley and Melania appeared before Executive Judge Quisumbing, Jr. in a meeting. During the meeting, Shirley and Melania agreed that Melania would pay Shirley though Sheriff De Villa P1,400.00 every Monday of the week. From March 2009 to September 2010, Melania paid Shirley through Sheriff De Villa. 9
However, despite payments made by Melania, Shirley insisted that Sheriff De Villa levy on the properties found in Melania's beauty parlor to be sold at public auction. Sheriff De Villa refused to levy on the properties, as Melania no longer owned the beauty parlor. She presented him a certificate of business name registration from the Department of Trade and Industry, 10 stating that a certain Analiza Clemente owned the parlor. Sheriff De Villa personally asked Analiza Clemente if she owned the parlor, which she confirmed in a letter 11 dated August 23, 2007.
In 2010, Melania wrote Sheriff De Villa stating that Shirley went to the beauty parlor and took the steel support of the air conditioning unit installed inside the beauty parlor. 12 Also, Shirley allegedly took a cellular phone belonging to Melania's co-worker. 13
In its report 14 dated August 27, 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator found that Sheriff De Villa failed to comply with his duties under Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court on making periodic reports every 30 days in case the writ of execution is not fully satisfied. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that he be found guilty of simple neglect of duty and be fined an amount equal to his salary for one (1) month.
The issue for our resolution is whether Sheriff De Villa is guilty of neglect of duty.
We agree with the Office of the Court Administrator and find Sheriff De Villa guilty of simple neglect of duty.
Simple neglect of duty is "the failure of an employee to give [one's] attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference." 15
Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court requires that the officer implementing a writ of execution make a return of the writ immediately after satisfaction of the judgment, whether in part or in full. In case the judgment cannot be fully satisfied within 30 days from receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reasons for the failure. The officer shall continue reporting to the court every 30 days thereon until full satisfaction of the judgment or until the effectivity of the writ of execution expires. Rule 39, Section 14 provides:
Section 14. Return of writ of execution. — The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reasons therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
In this case, Sheriff De Villa received the writ of execution on March 26, 2007, but he failed to make a return of the writ after partial satisfaction of the judgment. Since the judgment was satisfied only in part, he was required under Rule 39, Section 14 to make periodic reports within 30 days from receipt of the writ. However, he only filed a sheriff's report on May 3, 2007, which was beyond 30 days from his receipt of the writ of execution. Moreover, he never made any report after the sheriff's report dated May 3, 2007.
In Patawaran v. Nepomuceno, 16 this court explained the importance of making periodic reports to the court in case the judgment debtor fails to satisfy a judgment in full:
. . ., the submission of the return and periodic reports is not an empty requirement. It serves to update the court as to the status of the execution and to give it an idea as to why the judgment was not satisfied. It also provides insights for the court as to how efficient court processes are after judgment has been promulgated. The overall purpose of the requirement is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions. 17
For failure to make the required periodic reports under Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court, Sheriff De Villa is guilty of simple neglect of duty.
Sheriff De Villa's liability is solely based on his failure to file a return of the writ of execution and failure to make periodic reports to the court. He cannot be faulted for the delay in the full implementation of the writ of execution. The full satisfaction of the judgment depended on Melania's capacity to pay, which does not concern Sheriff De Villa.
Also, Sheriff De Villa cannot be faulted for not further levying on the properties found in the beauty parlor. As he confirmed and as evidenced by the certificate of business name registration issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, Sheriff De Villa had a well-founded belief that Melania no longer owned the beauty parlor. Had the properties turned out to be owned by another person and Sheriff De Villa proceeded on levying on them, he would be open to further administrative liability. Thus, he was justified in not levying on the properties found in the beauty parlor.
Under the Revised Administrative Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 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 on the second offense. 18 For Sheriff De Villa's offense, we find the penalty of suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay sufficient sanction.
WHEREFORE, we find Wilmar M. De Villa, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Imus, Cavite, GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. He is SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE without pay for a period of ONE (1) MONTH and ONE (1) DAY. His suspension is effective upon service on him of a copy of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. AIHDcC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 2.
2. Id. at 6-10.
3. Id. at 18-19.
4. Id. at 2.
5. Id. at 11.
6. Id. at 12-17.
7. Id. at 5.
8. Id. at 28-29.
9. Id. at 31-80.
10. Id. at 81.
11. Id. at 82.
12. Id. at 83.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 133-137.
15. Tablate v. Rañeses, 574 Phil. 536, 548 (2008) [Per J. Azcuna, First Division].
16. 543 Phil. 249 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
17. Id. at 260.
18. REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, Sec. 46 (D) (1).