Mejia v. Mangubat

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-20-4061. June 15, 2020.]

RODRIGO P. MEJIA, complainant,vs. DEXTER LANCE B. MANGUBAT, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 35, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ORMOC CITY, LEYTE, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 15, 2020which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-20-4061 [formerly OCA I.P.I. 18-4859-P] — RODRIGO P. MEJIA v. DEXTER LANCE B. MANGUBAT, Sheriff IV, Branch 35, Regional Trial Court, Ormoc City, Leyte

Antecedents

Complainant Rodrigo P. Mejia charged Dexter Lance B. Mangubat, Sheriff IV, Branch 35, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ormoc City, Leyte with gross neglect of duty and gross insufficiency in the performance of his duties. Mejia essentially alleged:

He filed a complaint for breach of contract, specific performance, and damages against Danao Arms Manufacturing Corporation (DAMCOR), represented by Byron F. Garcia. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4425-O and raffled to RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City, Leyte.

By Decision 1 dated November 28, 2014, the trial court granted the complaint and ordered DAMCOR to deliver to Mejia fifty (50) pieces of 9mm pistols, among others, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, to wit:

Ordering defendant to deliver to plaintiff the fifty (50) pieces high capacity 9mm pistols together with its corresponding magazines and plastic packing and to pay the following amount:

1) The amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages;

2) The amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

3) The amount of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees;

4) The amount of P17,650.00 as filing fees;

5) Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED. 2

The decision lapsed into finality as of April 13, 2015. 3 Thereafter, the trial court, upon his motion, issued a writ of execution 4 dated September 20, 2016 directing Sheriff Mangubat to implement the decision.

Sheriff Mangubat failed to serve copy of the writ of execution on DAMCOR's representative Byron Garcia because the latter could not be located in his last known address in Ormoc City, Leyte. He (Mejia) then informed Sheriff Mangubat of Garcia's new address in Talisay City, Cebu. But Sheriff Mangubat did nothing about it.

He (Mejia) thus stepped up and by his own effort, was able to recover the firearms from the custody of the Philippine National Police-Firearms and Explosives Division (PNP-FED). The trial court's monetary award though remained unsatisfied.

Sheriff Mangubat's failure to perform his ministerial duty to implement the writ constituted gross negligence and rendered the trial court's ruling an empty victory, causing him injustice.

In his Comment dated October 17, 2018, Sheriff Mangubat countered:

On October 12, 2016, he went to Garcia's last known address to implement the writ but the latter was not there. In his Certification 5 dated October 12, 2016, Punong Barangay Filomeno V. Laurente confirmed that Garcia no longer resided there. He nevertheless returned to Garcia's address on October 18 and 27, 2016 in his further attempt to implement the writ but he was unsuccessful. In his Report dated November 3, 2016, he stated that after three (3) failed attempts, the writ remained unserved due to "insufficient address." 6

On November 25, 2016, Mejia requested the trial court to order the PNP-FED to release the pistols to him as partial satisfaction of the decision. 7 Under Order dated December 5, 2017, however, the trial court denied the request on ground that the PNP-FED was a non-party to the case, thus, a writ of execution cannot be issued against it. 8 Consequently, he (Sheriff Mangubat) refused to retrieve, let alone deliver the pistols to Mejia. He nonetheless advised Mejia to instead file the appropriate pleadings in court to facilitate the implementation of the writ.

Report and Recommendation of the

In its Report and Recommendation dated February 6, 2020, the OCA, through Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino recommended that Sheriff Mangubat be reprimanded for simple neglect of duty with warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. 9

The OCA found that Sheriff Mangubat exerted effort to personally serve the writ to Garcia's last known address on October 12, 18, and 27, 2016. But Sheriff Mangubat was unsuccessful because Garcia was never there. Sheriff Mangubat even secured a certification from the barangay that Garcia was no longer residing in the place.

Neither could Sheriff Mangubat be faulted for declining Mejia's request to write PNP-FED for the release of the pistols since it would have violated the trial court's order. 10

Be that as it may, Sheriff Mangubat was liable for simple neglect of duty for failure to act on Mejia's information that Garcia had already transferred to Talisay City, Cebu. It was Sheriff Mangubat's duty to coordinate with the Office of the Clerk of Court for the RTC-Talisay City for purposes of implementing the writ within that jurisdiction. Sheriff Mangubat fell short of his duty when he stood idly despite receiving this information from Mejia himself. 11

Ruling

We adopt in full the OCA's factual findings and legal conclusions.

Mejia charged Sheriff Mangubat with gross neglect of duty, particularly for the latter's failure to implement the writ of execution which the trial court issued in Civil Case No. 4425-O.

Gross neglect of duty refers to negligence that is characterized by a glaring want of care; by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally; or by acting with a conscious indifference to consequences with respect to other persons who may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. 12

Records here show that Sheriff Mangubat was directed to implement the trial court's decision in Civil Case No. 4425-O. He attempted to personally serve the writ to Garcia's last known address in Ormoc City, Leyte on October 12, 18, and 27, 2016. He failed in all three (3) attempts because Garcia was never there each time. He even secured a certification from the punong barangay that Garcia no longer resided in the area. His report dated November 3, 2016 bore this circumstance as the reason why he could not implement the writ.

Too, the fact that he refused to heed Mejia's request to coordinate with PNP-FED for the release of the firearms was justified. For the trial court itself had pronounced under Order dated December 5, 2017 that no writ of execution may be issued against PNP-FED because it was not privy to the proceedings in Civil Case No. 4425-O.

In Sonido v. Judge Majaducon, 13 the charge of negligence against respondent sheriff was negated by the efforts he made in serving the writ upon the judgment debtor, taken with respondent sheriff's explanation on why he was not able to implement the same. So must it be.

Be that as it may, we reckon with paragraph 5 of Administrative Circular No. 12 stating thus: "no sheriff or deputy sheriff shall execute a court writ outside his territorial jurisdiction without first notifying in writing and seeking the assistance of, the sheriff of the place where the execution shall take place."

Here, it is undisputed that Mejia informed Sheriff Mangubat of Garcia's new address in Talisay City, Cebu. Pursuant to the foregoing provision, the responsibility to coordinate with the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC, Talisay City, Cebu rested on Sheriff Mangubat, not Mejia. As it was though, instead of complying with paragraph 5 of Administrative Circular No. 12, Sheriff Mangubat merely advised Mejia to file the appropriate pleading before the trial court so that notices may be sent to the Office of the Clerk of Court for RTC, Talisay City, Cebu.

On this score, Sheriff Mangubat fell short of the required standard of diligence, care, and devotion expected of a sheriff in the discharge of his duties. His failure to coordinate with the Clerk of Court of RTC, Talisay City, Cebu constitutes simple neglect of duty, or the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. 14

Under Section 50 (D), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense, is punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. 15 This notwithstanding, the Court may consider mitigating circumstances in imposing the final penalty, such as the erring individual's admission of guilt, remorse, length of service, high performance rating, or number of infractions. 16

In Re: Report of Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, 17 the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand on the employee who was found guilty of simple neglect of duty considering it was his first infraction. Since the case here involves Sheriff Mangubat's first offense, the Court finds that the imposition of reprimand on Mangubat is also appropriate, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

A final word. Sheriffs, as officers of the court and agents of the law, play an important role in the administration of justice. They are in the forefront of things, tasked as they are to serve judicial writs, execute all processes, and carry into effect the orders of the court. As a front-line representative of the judicial system, sheriffs must always demonstrate integrity in their conduct for once they lose the people's trust, they also diminish the people's faith in the entire judiciary. 18

WHEREFORE, Dexter Lance B. Mangubat, Sheriff IV, Branch 35, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ormoc City, Leyte is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. He is REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 7-24.

2.Id. at 24.

3.Id. at 25.

4.Id. at 26-27.

5.Id. at 42.

6.Id. at 43.

7.Id. at 44-45.

8.Id. at 49-50.

9.Id. at 72.

10.Id. at 70.

11.Id. at 70-71.

12.Lucas v. Dizon, 747 Phil. 88, 97 (2014).

13. 422 Phil. 607, 612-613 (2001).

14.Olympia-Geronilla v. Montemayor, Jr., 810 Phil. 1, 15 (2017).

15.Id.

16.RE: Report of Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of Office, Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA), on Neglect of Duty of Ferdinand F. Andres, Human Resource Management Officer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Personnel Division, OAS-OCA, the Processor-in-Charge of Appointment and the Alleged Erroneous Recording, Erasure, and Alteration of the Performance Rating on the Record Book, 763 Phil. 196, 203 (2015).

17.Id. at 204.

18.Atty. Cabigao v. Nery, 719 Phil. 475, 483 (2013).