FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-21-016. June 16, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4975-P]
SONIA E. GABATERO, complainant, vs.FERNANDO M. AUSTRIA AND DONALD P. LEONARDO, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-21-016 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4975-P] (Sonia E. Gabatero v. Fernando M. Austria and Donald P. Leonardo, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan). — This administrative matter stemmed from a Letter Complaint 1 dated August 27, 2019 of complainant Sonia E. Gabatero (Gabatero) against respondents Fernando M. Austria (Austria) and Donald P. Leonardo (Leonardo), both Sheriff IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, charging them with Gross Neglect/Dereliction of Duty, Gross Inefficiency and Misconduct.
According to the complaint, Sheriffs Austria and Leonardo failed and/or refused to implement the Writ of Execution 2 dated September 24, 2018 pursuant to the Decision 3 dated February 19, 2018 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binmaley, Pangasinan in the unlawful detainer case filed by Gabatero against Rosendo Austria (defendant). 4
In the said Decision, the MTC ruled that Gabatero is entitled to the possession of the real property subject of the case and ordered the defendant to vacate the premises. Likewise, the MTC ruled that the defendant is obligated to pay Gabatero P220,000.00 as accumulated unpaid rental fees from the time of his illegal possession thereof, plus P5,000.00 as monthly rental fee until he vacates the property. 5
Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal and Motion to Fix Supersedeas Bond and Motion to Defer and/or Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Writ of Execution before the MTC. 6 In a Joint Resolution 7 dated July 12, 2018, the MTC granted the appeal but denied the motions to fix bond and to defer the issuance of the writ of execution. The MTC ruled that the judgment in an unlawful detainer case is immediately executory until the defendant perfects his appeal and pays the supersedeas bond within the reglementary period. The defendant failed to pay the bond within the period required under the law. Hence, the MTC granted the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution filed by Gabatero. 8
On September 24, 2018, the Writ of Execution 9 was issued by the MTC. Meanwhile, the appeal of the defendant was raffled to RTC of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 37.
Sheriff Austria was able to serve the copy of the Writ of Execution to the defendant on October 10, 2018. He also served a copy of a Notice of Demand to vacate the premises to the defendant on October 22, 2018. He again made a verbal demand to the defendant to vacate the property on December 14, 2018. However, the defendant refused to leave. 10 All these are evidenced by Sheriff's Reports dated October 11, 11 October 23 12 and December 17, 2018, 13 respectively. Thereafter, sheriff Austria made no more reports to the court on the proceedings taken to implement the writ. 14
Through the request 15 of Gabatero, another sheriff was assigned to implement the writ. Sheriff Leonardo was designated in place of Austria on May 29, 2019. 16 Leonardo was able to levy a motor vehicle of the defendant on June 4, 2019. 17 However, Gabatero contends that sheriff Leonardo likewise failed to fulfill his duty of placing her in possession of the property and of selling the levied property to satisfy the money judgment in her favor. Hence, she filed this complaint against the respondents. 18
Through separate 1st Indorsements, 19 Austria and Leonardo were directed to comment on the complaint filed by Gabatero within 10 days from receipt of the Indorsement. 20
In their Joint Comment 21 dated December 13, 2019, respondents denied that they have been remiss in their duty of implementing the writ. The delay in making the defendant vacate the premises was due to the improvements on the subject property which necessitated the filing of a motion for issuance of writ of demolition by Gabatero, which she in fact filed on July 1, 2019. Further, they were unable to proceed with the sale of the levied motor vehicle because it was subject of Criminal Case No. 54758 entitled People of the Philippines v. Angelo Cancino before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Dagupan City, Branch 3. 22
Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Court
In a Memorandum 23 dated December 28, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case against Leonardo be dismissed for lack of merit while it found Austria guilty of simple neglect of duty and recommended that he be suspended for six months without pay. 24
In acquitting Leonardo, the OCA found that he could not proceed with the sale of the levied motor vehicle because it was a subject of a criminal case pending before the MTCC of Dagupan City, Branch 3, as evidenced by the subpoena duces tecum25 issued by the said court. 26
On the other hand, OCA found that Austria committed simple neglect of duty when he failed to submit a periodic return of the writ of execution, as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The provision requires the Sheriff to make a report to the court every 30 days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. OCA found that Austria only filed three Sheriff Reports dated October 11, October 23, and December 17, 2018, respectively and failed to make periodic returns from December 17, 2018 until May 2019, when he was replaced by Sheriff Leonardo. 27
Taking into account the previous infractions 28 committed by Austria, OCA recommended that he be suspended for 6 months in accordance with the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS). 29
Issue
The main issue to be resolved by this Court is whether respondents should be held administratively liable for failing and/or refusing to implement the writ of execution issued in favor of Gabatero.
Ruling of the Court
After a review of the records of the case, the Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the OCA, but with modification as to the penalty imposed upon Austria.
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides for the duty of the executing sheriff to issue a return on the writ of execution, to wit:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, Austria was the executing sheriff assigned to implement the writ of execution dated September 24, 2018. Under the Writ of Execution, defendant has to vacate the subject property and pay Gabatero P220,000.00 as accumulated unpaid rental fees plus P5,000.00 monthly rental fees until he vacates the premises. 30
On October 10, Austria served a copy of the writ to the defendant. On October 22, Austria served a Notice of Demand to vacate to the defendant and gave him 5 days to leave the premises. On December 14, Austria tried to implement the writ again and demanded that the defendant vacate the property but to no avail. All these are evidenced by the Sheriff's Reports dated October 11, October 23, and December 17, 2018, respectively.
However, Austria made no returns thereafter. He did not provide an explanation as to why the writ was not immediately implemented. Likewise, he failed to apprise the court of the proceedings taken to fully satisfy the execution of the judgment. This is in clear violation of Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
While this Court notes that Austria applied for a validation request from Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) for the conduct of a Pre-Demolition Conference with the defendant dated January 14, 2018 pursuant to Republic Act No. 7279, 31 he failed to follow up on the status of such request. Based from the Report 32 dated November 27, 2019 issued by the PCUP, a validation survey was conducted on the property on March 24, 2019 which found that the defendant is covered by the directive on the conduct of a Pre-Demolition Conference which shall be scheduled upon issuance of the Writ of Demolition. This development prompted Gabatero to file for the motion for issuance of a Writ of Demolition on July 1, 2019.
However, Austria failed to apprise the court of these proceedings. He did not submit any returns to the court from December 18, 2018 until he was succeeded by Leonardo on May 29, 2019. He failed to report the status of the implementation of the Writ of Execution. The Rules are clear that the Sheriff has the ministerial duty to submit a Return to the court every 30 days until the writ is fully executed or its effectivity expires.
For failing to give due attention to the task expected of him, we find Austria guilty of simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give attention to a task, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is censurable under Section 50 (D) (1) of the 2017 RACCS as a less grave offense and is punishable by suspension from office for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
The submission of the return and periodic reports by the sheriffs is not a duty that must be taken lightly. 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 speedy execution of decisions. 33
As to the penalty imposed upon Austria, this Court finds that a suspension of three months is commensurate to the simple neglect of duty he has committed, taking into consideration the actions he has taken and the previous infractions he incurred. 34
On the other hand, we find that Leonardo fulfilled the duty expected of him under the Rules. As culled from the records, Leonardo was designated as the executing sheriff on May 29, 2019. 35 He was able to levy a motor vehicle owned by defendant as evidenced by the Receipt 36 dated June 4, 2019. However, he was not able to proceed with the sale of the levied property to satisfy the judgment because the vehicle was the subject of a pending criminal case before the MTCC of Dagupan City, Branch 3. Likewise, the defendant's counsel manifested that the motor vehicle has been pledged/mortgaged by the defendant to Finaswide Credit Corporation to secure his monetary obligation. Thus, the disposition of the levied vehicle was held in abeyance.
With respect to the failure of the defendant to vacate the premises, Leonardo explained that it was due to the improvements introduced by the defendant to the property which required the filing of a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Demolition 37 by Gabatero on July 1, 2019 before the RTC of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 37 where the appeal was pending. However, on July 9, 2019, the RTC issued a Decision 38 setting aside the Decision of the MTC and dismissing the complaint of Gabatero for lack of merit and/or lack of cause of action for unlawful detainer. Likewise, the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Demolition was referred back to the MTC for proper action.
Hence, the failure of Leonardo to implement the writ of execution was due to reasons not attributable to him. When he received the designation as executing sheriff on May 29, 2019, he submitted a Return dated June 4, 2019 informing the court that he was able to levy a motor vehicle of the defendant. He is mandated by law to submit another report after 30 days therefrom. However, on July 9, 2019, the RTC reversed the Decision of the MTC. Therefore, the Writ of Execution dated September 24, 2018 became ineffective upon the reversal of the Decision of the MTC and Leonardo's duty to implement the same has ceased.
On a final note, the Court reminds the sheriffs of their significant role in the dispensation of justice, as discussed in Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero, 39 to wit:
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice. They are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts. If not enforced, such decisions become empty victories of the prevailing parties. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court's writs and processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice. 40
Due to the nature of their duties, sheriffs are often in direct contact with litigants. As such, they must not exhibit conduct that may discredit the public's faith in the judiciary. They must not be remiss in their duties, particularly of implementing the judgment and apprising the court of its status, otherwise, the prevailing party will be left with nothing but a paper victory.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Sheriff IV Fernando M. Austria is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and is hereby SUSPENDED for THREE (3) MONTHS without pay. Meanwhile, the administrative complaint against Sheriff IV Donald P. Leonardo is DISMISSED for lack of merit, but he is REMINDED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duty as Sheriff, specifically in filing the Sheriff's Return every thirty (30) days from receipt of the writ of execution until it has been fully implemented.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-7.
2.Id. at 10-11.
3.Id. at 12-20.
4.Id. at 3-4.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 4.
7.Id. at 21-28.
8.Id. at 28.
9.Id. at 10-11.
10.Id. at 5.
11.Id. at 29.
12.Id. at 36.
13.Id. at 37.
14.Id. at 5.
15.Id. at 30.
16.Id. at 43.
17.Id. at 48.
18.Id. at 6-7.
19.Id. at 38-39.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 40-42.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 63-68.
24.Id. at 68.
25.Id. at 49.
26.Id. at 66.
27.Id. at 66-67.
28. Austria was previously admonished and suspended for 1 month by the Court for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority and Dereliction of Duty.
29.Rollo, pp. 67-68.
30.Id. at 10.
31. Otherwise known as the "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992."
32.Rollo, p. 45.
33.Sanglay v. Padua II, 762 Phil. 314, 319-320 (2015).
34.Supra note 11.
35.Rollo, p. 43.
36.Id. at 48.
37.Id. at 46-47.
38.Id. at 54-59.
39. 412 Phil. 435 (2001).
40.Id. at 441-442.