SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-22-054. June 20, 2022.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5002-P]
ALEX T. NULADA, petitioner,vs. CRESENCIO G. GOMEZ, JR., SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 67, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GUIMBAL, ILOILO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 20, 2022which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-22-054 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5002-P] (Alex T. Nulada v. Cresencio G. Gomez, Jr., Sheriff IV, Branch 67, Regional Trial Court, Guimbal, Iloilo). — This Court resolves to RE-DOCKET this case as a regular administrative matter and adopt and approve with modifications the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) in its report and recommendation dated November 16, 2021, which found the respondent guilty of neglect of duty.
On January 3, 2019, petitioner Alex T. Nulada (Nulada) filed a Complaint 1 against respondent Sheriff Cresencio G. Gomez, Jr. 2(Sheriff Gomez). The complaint alleged that Gomez together with the spouses Orlando and Pureza Paulma (Spouses Paulma) and Nulada were parties in Special Proceedings No. 415 entitled "Petition for a Writ of Possession" filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Miagao, Iloilo (MTC) on December 29, 2017. 3 The MTC issued on February 1, 2018 an order treating the petition as a Motion for a Writ of Possession in Criminal Case No. 2604 entitled "People v. Atty. Orlando Paulma" for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang22. 4 On February 19, 2018, the MTC subsequently issued a writ of possession in favor of Nulada. On May 24, 2018, Atty. Orlando Paulma (Atty. Paulma) received a Notice to Vacate giving them 15 days to empty the building. 5
Nulada averred that Sheriff Gomez failed to deliver the possession of the building after the period of 15 days had expired. On June 19, 2018, the Spouses Paulma received another Notice of Writ of Possession/Last and Final Notice to Vacate giving them three days to vacate the premises. 6 Sheriff Gomez failed again to deliver the possession of the building to Nulada after the expiration of the three days given to the Spouses Paulma. 7
Nulada pointed out that in the sheriff's partial return of service dated June 29, 2018, Sheriff Gomez manifested the lack of action on his request for police assistance in enforcing the writ despite the order to that effect issued by the MTC. 8 The MTC later on denied the request of Sheriff Gomez for a break open order. As to the Sheriff's Return dated August 15, 2018, Sheriff Gomez again did not enforce the writ claiming that Atty. Paulma showed him a letter with a Manifestation and an attached Contract to Sell. 9 Sheriff Gomez continued his refusal to enforce the writ citing Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until the MTC issued another Order dated December 6, 2018 declaring that the Writ of Possession still stands. 10 Thereafter, Sheriff Gomez appeared to have abandoned his duty to enforce the writ, as he did not file any Sheriff's Return, which is in clear violation of Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 11
Sheriff Gomez counters in his Comment that the charge of neglect of duty is blatantly unfair and baseless. He asserts that he had done the following actions on the respective dates negating the notion of neglect of duty: CAIHTE
|
Date |
Actions taken |
|
May 7, 2018 |
Received Writ of Possession for service. 12 |
|
May 17, 2018 |
Served the Writ of Possession. 13 |
|
June 11, 2018 |
Requested for an order for police assistance. 14 |
|
June 14, 2018 |
Received an Order from the MTC for police assistance. 15 |
|
June 19, 2018 |
Served the writ again. 16 |
|
June 22, 2018 |
Sent letter to police for approval for police assistance with the Order of the MTC attached. 17 |
|
June 29, 2018 |
Submitted a Partial Return of service informing the MTC that the accused refused to vacate the premises. 18 |
|
August 14, 2018 |
Checked on the property, which was still occupied. He received a Manifestation with the attached Contract to Sell from Atty. Paulma. 19 |
|
August 15, 2018 |
Submitted his return informing the MTC and the parties of the approval of the request for police assistance. 20 |
|
September 18, 2018 |
Submitted Return of Service to the MTC. 21 |
|
September 26, 2018 |
Attended hearing regarding the Contract to Sell, which the MTC reset on two dates. 22 |
|
December 6, 2018 |
Received an Order from the MTC stating that the Contract to Sell covered a different lot and the Writ of Possession still stands. 23 |
|
February 19, 2019 |
Served a notice of the Writ of Possession and Final Notice to Vacate. 24 |
|
March 4, 2019 |
Returned to the place but the house was still occupied. 25 |
|
March 6, 2019 |
Submitted Return of Service to the MTC. 26 |
Sheriff Gomez avers that he exhausted all means possible within his power to implement the Writ of Possession having for a number of times served the writ informing this Court of the status thereof and without any action or order on the part of the MTC. 27
On November 16, 2021, the JIB pursuant to its authority under A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC submitted a report and recommendation to this Court with the following recommendations:
ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED for the consideration of the Supreme Court, that:
1. The instant case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and
2. Respondent Cresencio G. Gomez, Sheriff IV RTC, Branch 67, Guimbal Iloilo, be fined in the amount of P15,000 deductible from his salary. 28
In finding Sheriff Gomez guilty of neglect of duty, the JIB ratiocinated:
In Teresita Guerrero-Baylon v. Aniceto Boyles, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City, the Supreme Court held that sheriffs are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts. If not enforced, such decisions are empty victories of the prevailing parties. They must therefore comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writs promptly and expeditiously. As agents of 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 orders, they cannot afford to err without affecting the efficient administration of justice. The sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial. Once the writ is placed in his or her hands, a sheriff is obligated to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter and with reasonable promptness, taking heed of the prescribed period required by the Rules. The respondent is presumed to know all these and he cannot be excused from compliance regardless of his [or her] personal views and busy schedule. 29
xxx xxx xxx
Respondent's failure to enforce the writ violates Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, thus:
Court personnel shall at all time perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. 30
This Court agrees with the conclusion of the JIB finding the respondent guilty of simple of neglect of duty for his failure to implement the writ of possession.
Our ruling in Miranda v. Raymundo, Jr.31 outlines the importance of the role of the sheriff in the dispensation of justice, 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 orders, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice.
Sheriffs ought to know that they have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch. When writs are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. Unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed. Accordingly, they must comply with their mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible. As agents of the law, high standards are expected of sheriffs. 32
The records of the case palpably show that the respondent miserably failed to implement the writ of execution without any valid justification. In the present case, the MTC issued the writ of execution as early as February 19, 2018, commanding the respondent to deliver the possession of the subject property to the complainant. However, on multiple occasions, the respondent went to the subject premises to implement the writ but all were failed endeavors. It is worth noting that in one of the attempts to execute the writ, respondent failed to enforce the writ because Atty. Paulma had shown him a Manifestation with an attached Contract to Sell. The respondent did not proceed with the execution since he considered the manifestation as a third-party claim. 33 To this Court's mind, the respondent's exercise of discretion was ultra vires since a sheriff's role in the execution of judgment is purely ministerial. 34
The JIB correctly observed that respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as "disregard of, or a failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee." 35 As aptly pointed out by the JIB, the respondent failed to perform his official duty properly and with diligence as mandated by Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. 36
Even if this Court affirms the finding of administrative guilt, we modify the penalty recommended by the JIB. Section 15, Rule 140 37 of the Rules of Court classifies simple neglect of duty as a less serious charge. Section 17 of Rule 140 on the other hand provides for the sanctions. It reads: DETACa
Section 17. Sanctions. —
xxx xxx xxx
(2) If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
(a) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months; or (b) A fine of more than P35,000 but not exceeding P100,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx 38
This Court takes note that this is the first offense committed by the respondent. We consider such fact as a mitigating circumstance in keeping with the provision of Section 19 of Rule 140, which provides:
Section 19. Modifying Circumstances. — In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court may, in its discretion, appreciate the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances:
(1) Mitigating circumstances:
(a) First offense; x x x
With respect to the manner of imposition of the penalty where a mitigating circumstance is present, the second paragraph of Section 20, Rule 140 governs. The entirety of the provision reads:
SECTION 20. Manner of Imposition. — If one (1) or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double the maximum prescribed under this Rule.
If one (1) or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half the minimum prescribed under this Rule.
If there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances present, the Supreme Court may offset each other. 39
After taking into account the mitigating circumstance of first offense and the rules in the imposition of penalties, this Court finds the need to modify the recommended penalty by the JIB. A fine in an amount not less than half of the minimum penalty of P35,000.00 shall be imposed upon the respondent. Accordingly, respondent must be meted the penalty of fine in the amount of P18,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
FOR THESE REASONS, this Court finds Cresencio G. Gomez, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Guimbal, Iloilo GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. He is FINED in the amount of P18,000.00 and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2. Also spelled as Crescencio in some parts of the rollo.
3.Rollo, p. 3.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 5.
12.Id. at 55.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 55-56.
21.Id. at 56.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 57.
28.Id. at 84.
29.Id. at 82. (Emphasis supplied).
30.Id. at 83.
31. 749 Phil. 9 (2014).
32.Id. at 14. (Citations omitted).
33.Rollo, p. 83.
34.Paner v. Torres, 446 Phil. 508, 512 (2003). (Citation omitted)
35.Torres v. Reyes, G.R. No. 242218, December 5, 2018.
36.Rollo, p. 83.
37. A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, February 22, 2022 reads:
Section 15. Less Serious Charges. — Less serious charges include:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Simple neglect of duty in the performance or non-performance of official functions;
xxx xxx xxx
38. A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, February 22, 2022.
39. Emphasis supplied.