SECOND DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 18-4821-P. January 11, 2021.]
ESTRELLA S. FRIS, *complainant,vs. JUANITO M. FERANCULLO, * SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, BRANCH 42, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 January 2021which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 18-4821-P (Estrella S. Frisv. Juanito M. Ferancullo,Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 42). — The present administrative case stemmed from a verified complaint 1 filed by complainant Estrella S. Fris (Estrella) charging respondent Juanito M. Ferancullo, Sheriff IV (Sheriff Ferancullo) of the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 42 (RTC), with nonfeasance relative to Civil Case No. 3147-14, entitled 'Yolanda Holgado vda. De Leuterio-Stark represented by Albert H. Garcia v. Municipal Trial Court of Pola, Oriental Mindoro, et al. represented by Gumercindo L. Leuterio' for Annulment of Judgment with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction before the RTC. 2
The Facts
Records reveal that Civil Case No. 3147-14 was an offshoot of Civil Case No. 354, a forcible entry case before the Municipal Trial Court of Pola, Oriental Mindoro (MTC), entitled 'Jose Leuterio, et al. v. Grace S. Leuterio, et al.'3
In her verified complaint, Estrella alleged that on November 13, 2017, she went to Brgy. Maluanluan, Pola, Oriental Mindoro for the execution of the RTC's Decision in Civil Case No. 3147-14. She averred that Sheriff Ferancullo made her sign a Turnover and Receipt of Possession, 4 which she signed under the impression that the latter would accompany her to the actual site of the property subject of the case. However, despite her repeated requests, Sheriff Ferancullo refused to do so. Later on, when she visited the property, she asserted that she was barred from entering the same. Hence, the present complaint accusing Sheriff Ferancullo of failing to perform his job properly. 5
In defense, 6 Sheriff Ferancullo claimed that during the hearing on August 22, 2017 in Civil Case No. 3147-14, then pending before the RTC, the counsel of petitioner therein, Yolanda Holgado vda. De Leuterio-Stark (Yolanda), manifested the willingness of his client to surrender the physical possession of the property subject of the case. 7 Thus, in an Order 8 dated November 6, 2017, the RTC directed Sheriff Ferancullo 'to implement the conditions agreed upon by the parties to this court last August 22, 2017 and x x x to submit a certification or report within fifteen (15) days from today.' Sheriff Ferancullo then coordinated with the parties for the proper turnover of the subject property. Indeed, on November 13, 2017, he turned over the subject property to Estrella, as the representative of Jose Leuterio, et al. as evidenced by the Turnover and Receipt of Possession 9 that Estrella signed. 10 Thereafter, he prepared and submitted his Sheriff's Return 11 on the same date.
Sheriff Ferancullo further averred that prior to the proceedings in Civil Case No. 3147-14, he was also directed to implement the Decision of the MTC in Civil Case No. 354 through an Alias Writ of Execution (Alias Writ) 12 despite the fact that former Deputy Sheriff Ramon M. Martinez of the MTC had already implemented the same. Pursuant to the Alias Writ, Sheriff Ferancullo served a Notice to Voluntarily Vacate the Subject Land in Question 13 dated April 7, 2017. However, he was no longer able to pursue the same as the RTC subsequently issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction 14 over the subject property in Civil Case No. 3147-14. 15
In view of the foregoing defenses, Sheriff Ferancullo prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 16
The Executive Judge's Investigation Report and Recommendation
In the Investigation Report and Recommendation 17 dated November 27, 2019 of Executive Judge Harry D.P. Jaminola (Judge Jaminola) of the RTC-Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, the Investigating Judge designated in this case, he recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Sheriff Ferancullo, considering that: (a) Estrella manifested that she was no longer pursuing the administrative charge against him; and (b) she misunderstood the implementation proceedings conducted by him, as he was not in fact implementing a writ of execution on November 13, 2017 but merely carrying out the orders of the RTC as extant in its Order 18 dated November 6, 2017.
The Office of the Court Administrator's Memorandum
In its Memorandum 19 dated July 13, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended, among others, that Sheriff Ferancullo be found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and be reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act will be dealt with more severely. 20
In disagreeing with Judge Jaminola, the OCA pointed out that Sheriff Ferancullo was already remiss in the performance of his duties when he failed to submit his sheriff's return in Civil Case No. 354. The OCA pointed out that the Alias Writ in the said case was received by the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the RTC on March 29, 2017. 21 Hence, assuming that Sheriff Ferancullo received the Alias Writ on even date, he was supposed to have made his first return on May 7, 2017, and thereafter, on June 6, 2017, and so on, in accordance with Section 14, 22 Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. Such failure was tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and merits the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year of suspension under Section 52 (A) (16), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue for the Court's consideration is whether or not grounds exist in this case to hold Sheriff Ferancullo administratively liable.
The Court's Ruling
After a judicious perusal of the case, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to hold Sheriff Ferancullo administratively liable.
One of the sheriff's principal functions is to serve or execute writs and processes addressed or assigned to him by the court. The sheriff is also tasked to prepare and submit returns of his proceedings. 23
A meticulous reading of Estrella's verified complaint will show that her charge for nonfeasance against Sheriff Ferancullo involved the proceedings in Civil Case No. 3147-14 which was pending before the RTC, and that Estrella appears to have misunderstood the nature of the RTC's directive to Sheriff Ferancullo. Contrary to Estrella's allegation, no writ of execution has yet been issued in Civil Case No. 3147-14 as the case was still pending. Instead, and as clearly borne out by the records, the RTC merely ordered Sheriff Ferancullo 'to implement the conditions agreed upon by the parties to this court last August 22, 2017 and x x x to submit a certification or report within fifteen (15) days from today' 24 in light of the manifestation of Yolanda's counsel that his client was willing to surrender the physical possession of the subject property to Jose Leuterio, et al. Accordingly, Sheriff Ferancullo took the necessary steps for the proper turnover of the subject property, which was successfully implemented on November 13, 2017 when Estrella, as the representative of Jose Leuterio, et al. in the aforesaid Civil Case No. 3147-14, signed the Turnover and Receipt of Possession. 25 Thereafter, Sheriff Ferancullo prepared and submitted his Sheriff's Return 26 dated November 13, 2017. Estrella's principal grievance that Sheriff Ferancullo failed to accompany her to the site of the subject property was justified by the established fact that Yolanda's counsel manifested in open court their willingness to peacefully surrender the subject property.
From the foregoing established facts and evidence on record, the Court finds that the administrative complaint against Sheriff Ferancullo deserves no merit and therefore, must be dismissed. Nonfeasance is defined as 'the intentional failure to perform a required duty or obligation.' 27 Having actually performed the required directives pertaining to Civil Case No. 3147-14, the case subject of Estrella's complaint, no grounds exist in this case to hold Sheriff Ferancullo administratively liable. Indeed, to penalize him for any alleged infractions pertaining to Civil Case No. 354, not being included in the formal charge against him, 28 would be highly improper because it will violate his right to due process. 29
WHEREFORE, the administrative case against respondent Juanito M. Ferancullo, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 42 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020)."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* 'Friis' in the title of the complaint. See rollo, p. 2.
* 'Ferrancullo' in the title of the complaint. Id. at 2.
1.Id. at 2-4.
2.Id.at 13.
3.Id. at 8. See also id. at 48-49.
4.Id. at 15.
5.Id. at 2-3.
6. See Verified Comment dated July 5, 2018, id. at 8.
7. See Order dated August 22, 2017, id. at 13. Signed by Judge Erwin Y. Dimayacyac.
8.Id. at 14.
9.Id. at 15.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id. at 16.
12.Id. at 25. Issued by Clerk of Court II Minerva N. Rabulan.
13.Id. at 26.
14.Id. at 27-29. Issued by Presiding Judge Erwin Y. Dimayacyac.
15.Id. at 9-10.
16.Id. at 11.
17.Id. at 47-52. Signed by Executive Judge Harry D.P. Jaminola.
18.Id. at 14.
19.Id. at 78-81. Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva.
20.Id. at 81.
21.Id. at 80.
22. 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 reason 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.
23. See Badoles-Algodon v. Zaldivar, 529 Phil. 436, 446 (2006).
24. See rollo, p. 14.
25.Id. at 15.
26.Id. at 16.
27. <https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nonfeasance> (last visited December 17, 2020).
28. See Bernardo v. CA, 473 Phil. 284 (2004).
29. See Badoles-Algodon v. Zaldivar, supra note 23.