THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-15-3292. January 24, 2018.]
LUDIVINA GOMEZ, complainant,vs. HILARIO P. COMCOM, JR., SHERIFF III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BAIS CITY, NEGROS ORIENTAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 24, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-15-3292, [Formerly OCA-IPI No. 12-3870-P] (Ludivina Gomez v. Hilario P. Comcom, Jr., Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bais City, Negros Oriental). — Before this Court is a Complaint 1 filed by complainant Ludivina Gomez (complainant) against respondent Hilario Comcom Jr. (respondent) with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), on the ground of ignorance of the law, incompetence in the performance of duty and grave abuse of authority and requiring the latter to reimburse the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as payment for the house and other damages relative to the Decision 2 dated September 21, 2011, of the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Branch 45 (RTC), in Civil Case No. 752, entitled "Jose Maria Moras represented in this case by his Attorney-in-fact and Counsel Atty. Lionel J. Tayko v. Julian Gomez, Julia Nocete, Thelma Tipdas Santiago and Brigida Plaza Bermudez," a case for ejectment.
The Antecedents
Complainant is a sari-sari store vendor in Tamisu, Bais City, whose store was constructed on the land of her mother-in-law at Lot 2-I with an estimated area of Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six square meters (21,646 sq.m.). The said house is semi-concrete and is alleged to be worth Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). On the other hand, respondent is the Deputy Sheriff of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bais City (MTCC).
The complaint stemmed from the MTCC decision in Civil Case No. 752, which was reversed and set aside by the RTC in its decision dated September 21, 2011, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated November 3, 2008 of the court a quo is hereby ordered REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Defendants Julian Gomez Nocete, Thelma Tipdas Santiago and Brigida Plaza Bermudez and any of their relatives and assignees are hereby ordered as follows:
1. To vacate the premises they respectively occupy;
2. To pay rent in the amount of Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos per month from the time this case was filed up to the time they will actually vacate the premises; and
3. To reimburse the plaintiff the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 3
Complainant alleged that on March 21, 2012, respondent went to her house and served a Writ of Execution 4 dated January 31, 2012. She further averred that respondent went beyond the scope of his duties and responsibilities by demolishing her house despite the absence of her name in the said writ.
In his Comment 5 dated June 11, 2012, respondent stated that the November 3, 2008 Decision was rendered by the MTCC in favor of defendants therein. On appeal, RTC reversed and set aside the decision of the MTCC. 6
Respondent further stated that the decision of the RTC mandates that any relative of Julian Gomez, one of the defendants therein, should likewise vacate the subject premises. He asserted that the said decision also applies to complainant since the latter is the daughter-in-law of Julian Gomez. Moreover, respondent claimed that a judgment in the ejectment suit is binding not only upon defendants in the suit, but also against those not parties therein, if they are: CAIHTE
a. Trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; 7
b. Guests or other occupants of the premises with the permission of the defendant; 8
c. Transferees pendente lite; 9
d. Sub-lessees; 10
e. Co-lessees; and
f. Members of the family, relatives, and other privies of the defendant. 11
Respondent claimed that prior to the demolition of complainant's house, he discovered that the subject property allegedly owned by complainant is the same structure or house occupied by Julian Gomez. Moreover, the subject structure is not covered by a tax declaration and, thus, is illegally constructed by Julian Gomez or his relatives. Respondent underscored that the claim of complainant that the subject structure is hers is just a ploy for the purpose of filing the present administrative complaint. He submitted a Certification 12 dated June 11, 2012, issued by the Office of the City Assessor, City of Bais, Negros Oriental, to the effect that complainant has no real property declared in her name.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its Report and Recommendation 13 dated October 17, 2014, averred that respondent was acting within the scope of his authority when he implemented the writ of execution against complainant. The subject writ clearly includes the improvement occupied by complainant standing within the premises ordered vacated by the court.
However, the OCA found respondent administratively liable for simple misconduct and grave abuse of authority for demolishing the property and other improvements of complainant in the absence of a writ of demolition. Respondent exceeded his authority when he demolished the house of the complainant. The MTCC, in its order dated March 8, 2012, directed the issuance of a writ of execution for respondent to immediately demolish the structure of the defendants in Civil Case No. 752. However, no writ of demolition was actually issued by the MTCC, and respondent exceeded his authority in the implementation of the writ of execution. 14
The OCA cited the case of Wenceslao v. Madrazo, 15 wherein the Court found the sheriff therein guilty of misconduct and grave abuse of authority and fined him Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for going beyond the bounds of his authority in the implementation of the writ of execution. The OCA further stated that respondent should be held liable for simple misconduct and grave abuse of authority. With regard to the penalty to be imposed upon respondent sheriff, the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases classified simple misconduct as a less grave offense that carries a penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from service for the second offense. However, the OCA noted it was respondent's first infraction, a factor that may be considered in his favor. Further, since no ill motive can be attributed to him, it recommended a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) would be the appropriate penalty in this case. 16
The February 2, 2015 Resolution of the Court
In its Resolution 17 dated February 2, 2015, the Court Second Division found respondent guilty of misconduct and suspended him from service for a period of one (1) month without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. The fallo of the said resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent Sheriff Hilario P. Comcom, Jr., Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bais City, Negros Oriental, is found GUILTY of misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) month without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED. 18
However, the suspension order was not served on respondent because he ceased reporting for work and performing his functions as a sheriff after manifesting his intent to file for optional retirement effective July 31, 2014, which the Office of the Administrative Services (OAS) — OCA received on October 4, 2016. Meanwhile, respondent incurred absences causing his salary and other benefits to be accordingly recommended for withholding in December 2014. 19
In an undated letter, respondent explained that he did not receive the Court's resolution dated February 2, 2015, because he was forced to stay inside his residence for several months due to a death threat. This was also his reason for not being able to report for work, and, thus, was unable to process his optional retirement application. On March 14, 2017, respondent sent another letter requesting that his unserved suspension be converted to a fine. 20
Upon verification with the OAS-OCA, respondent's application for optional retirement is still under evaluation and awaiting his compliance with the requirements, especially the service of his one (1) month suspension in A.M. No. P-15-3292 (formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3870-P). Likewise, the submission of his application for the approval of the Court has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of his request for conversion of his penalty of suspension to a fine. 21
The OCA Recommendation
In its Memorandum 22 dated May 18, 2017, the OCA recommended that respondent's penalty of one (1) month suspension be converted to a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary to be deducted from his benefits and/or accrued leave credits, if only to serve the ends of compassionate justice. The OCA stated thus:
It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that the SUSPENSION for a period of one (1) month without pay imposed on respondent Sheriff Hilario P. Comcom, Jr., Municipal Trial Court in the Cities, Bais City, Negros Oriental, be CONVERTED into a FINE equivalent to one (1) month of his current salary to be deducted from his benefits and/or accrued leave credits to be computed by the Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator. 23
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Since the penalty of suspension can no longer be meted out as respondent no longer reports for work, the penalty imposed should be converted to a fine.
Respondent ceased reporting for work after manifesting his intent to file for optional retirement effective July 31, 2014, which the OAS received on October 4, 2016. Since he incurred absences, his salary and other benefits were accordingly recommended for withholding in December 2014.
As held in the case of Civil Service Commission and Department of Science and Technology, Regional Office No. V v. Arandia:
Considering, however, that respondent is no longer with DOST-V and is now working abroad, we can no longer impose on her the penalty of suspension from service. In lieu thereof, we impose on the respondent the penalty of a fine of one month salary, which amount is to be deducted from her retirement benefits or from whatever benefits, if any, that she is still entitled to receive after her resignation. If there is none, the respondent is ordered to pay the fine directly to and within the period to be directed by the CSC. 24
The Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be appropriate. The penalty of suspension imposed upon respondent should be converted to a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. 25
WHEREFORE, the penalty of suspension for a period of one (1) month without pay imposed on respondent Sheriff Hilario P. Comcom, Jr., Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bais City, Negros Oriental, is hereby CONVERTED to a FINE equivalent to one (1) month of his current salary to be deducted from his benefits and/or accrued leave credits to be computed by the Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator. (Martires, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id. at pp. 37-42.
3.Id. at 42.
4.Id. at 34-35.
5.Id. at 23-25.
6.Id. at 82.
7.Santiago v. Sheriff of Manila, 77 Phil. 740, 743-744 (1946).
8.Gozon v. De la Rosa, 77 Phil. 919, 921 (1947).
9.Planas, et al. v. Madrigal and Co., 94 Phil. 754, 759 (1954).
10.Go King, et al. v. Geronimo, 81 Phil. 445, 447 (1948).
11.Supra note 5.
12.Id. at 27.
13.Id. at 81-84.
14.Id. at 83.
15. A.M. No. P-92-768, 317 Phil. 812 (1995).
16.Rollo, p. 84.
17.Id. at 85-88.
18.Id. at 88.
19.Id. at 97.
20.Ibid.
21.Id. at 98.
22.Id. at 97-98.
23.Supra note 20.
24. G.R. No. 199549, 731 Phil. 639, 649-650 (2014).
25. Tan v. Quitorio, A.M. No. P-11-2919, 664 Phil. 263, 276 (2011).