SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-21-022. September 13, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5001-P]
PRUDENCIO T. PAGGAO, complainant, vs.MA. CAROLINA M. POTENTE, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 15, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NAIC, CAVITE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-21-022 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5001-P] (Prudencio T. Paggao v. Ma. Carolina M. Potente, Sheriff IV, Branch 15, Regional Trial Court, Naic, Cavite). — The instant administrative case arose from a letter-complaint 1 dated November 8, 2019 filed by Prudencio T. Paggao (complainant) against respondent Ma. Carolina M. Potente (Sheriff Potente), Sheriff IV, Branch 15, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naic, Cavite for dereliction of duty relative to Civil Case No. M-SCC-81-19, entitled "Prudencio T. Paggao v. Donnalyn N. Rocillo." 2
Complainant narrated that on September 23, 2019, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Indang-Mendez-Nuñez, Cavite, presided by Judge Ruby R. Gonzales, rendered judgment based on a compromise agreement he executed with defendant Donnalyn N. Rocillo (Rocillo). In the agreement, Rocillo promised to pay complainant the amount of P201,919.00 as principal amount and an additional P50,000.00 as cost of money, including P1,715.00 representing court fees. However, Rocillo did not comply with her undertaking. This prompted complainant to file a motion for execution before the MCTC. Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued but Sheriff Potente failed to implement it. 3
On November 5, 2019, complainant asked Sheriff Potente about the status of the writ of execution. 4 In response, Sheriff Potente sent complainant the following text messages: ETHIDa
[First Text Message]
MARAMI PA HONG NAUNA SA INYO MAHIGIT 30 PA PO ANG TINATAPOS KO. SAKA GAGAWAN KO PA KAYO NG ESTIMATED EXPENSES PA APPROVED KO KAY JUDGE PARA IDEPOSIT NYO SA COURT YUNG PANG GASTOS SA PAG SERVE NG WRIT. PERO MALAMANG WALA NA MAKUHA KAY DONNALYN KASI MAY IBANG NAGDEMANDA SA KANYA NABATAK KO NA LAHAT [NG] GAMIT NYA SA BAHAY DAHIL WAL[A]NG PAMBAYAD. FRIDAY NASA OFFICE AKO.5
[Second Text Message]
WAG MUNA KAYO PUMUNTA KASI DI KO PA HO MAGAGAWA ANG ESTIMATED EXPENSES NYO DI NYO PA KAILANGAN MAG DEPOSIT NG PANG GASTOS KASI MARAMI PA AKO TATAPUSIN. MARAMI PA HO AKONG GINAGAWANG WRIT. FIRST COME FIRST SERVE PO. TATAPUSIN KO PA YUNG MGA NAUNA MATAGAL PA HO YON. INTAY NA LANG KAYO NG TXT NI WILLIAM KUN[G] KELAN KAYO PUPUNTA. SALAMAT HO.6
Hence, the Complaint. 7
Complainant avers that Sheriff Potente should have implemented the writ regardless of her personal opinion. 8
In her Comment 9 dated July 27, 2020, Sheriff Potente admitted that the writ was yet to be implemented. She received the writ on October 22, 2019. When complainant asked her about the status of the writ, she explained that it was included in the writs that were pending for implementation. She further explained that due to the voluminous number of writs coming from the MCTC, she scheduled the implementation of the writs on a "first-come first-serve basis." 10 Anent her text message claiming that complainant might not be able to get anything of value from Rocillo, she explained that she was merely stating a fact, considering that in another case, 11 she had already enforced a writ of execution against Rocillo. Moreover, the writ in the other case was only partially executed since Rocillo had no other valuable personal properties that could be levied upon. 12
Lastly, Sheriff Potente sought the Court's understanding stating that the 30-day period for implementing the writ is not feasible. She explained that she is under a single sala court and has the sole responsibility of serving court processes, enforcing summonses, writs of execution, small claims and other court matters delegated or assigned to her coming from six municipalities: Indang, Magallanes, Maragondon, Mendez, Naic, and Ternate, in Cavite. She added that she was also tasked to conduct the raffle of publications every Tuesday and public auction of foreclosed properties every Thursday. 13
OCA Report and Recommendation
In its Report 14 dated December 15, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) held that Sheriff Potente should be held administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty for her failure to implement the subject writ on time. Accordingly, the OCA recommended that: (1) the instant administrative complainant against Sheriff Potente be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (2) Sheriff Potente be found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and be reprimanded, with a stern warning that a commission of a similar act will be dealt with more severely. 15
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether Sheriff Potente is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. cSEDTC
Our Ruling
The Court agrees with the OCA's findings that Sheriff Potente is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty.
Needless to say, an unexecuted decision is nothing but a meaningless victory on the part of the prevailing party. 16 It cannot be over-emphasized that sheriffs are duty bound to uphold the majesty of the law as embodied in the decision; their duty to implement the writ is purely ministerial; and they must comply with this mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible. 17
To ensure the speedy execution of decisions, sheriffs are mandated to follow the procedure outlined in Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Sec. 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.
Here, based on Sheriff Potente's admission, the immediate implementation of the writ could not be done due to the heavy volume of work assigned to her. This, however, is not a sufficient excuse that would justify the non-implementation of the writ. The Court agrees with the OCA's evaluation that Sheriff Potente should have adopted a more efficient procedure so that the writ could have been implemented on time. 18 The rule is clear: "in the absence of any instruction to the contrary, it is the duty of the sheriff to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute a judgment according to its mandate." 19 There is even no need for the litigants to "follow up" a writ's implementation. 20 A well-organized process could have helped her with the pending writs. 21 Thus, the OCA correctly ruled that Sheriff Potente should be held administratively liable for her failure to implement the writ on time.
Failure to comply with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court constitutes simple neglect of duty which is defined as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him or her and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. 22
Anent the penalty, the 2017 Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense with a penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense; and dismissal from the service for the second offense. 23
On this point, while the Court's duty is to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees, it also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. 24 In Adoma v. Gatcheco, 25 the Court mitigated the penalty to be imposed considering that respondent sheriff therein was a first-time offender. 26
Similarly, in Rubin v. Judge Corpus-Cabochan, 27 the Court, after finding that it was respondent's first infraction, lowered the penalty to admonition. 28 SDAaTC
It appearing that this is Sheriff Potente's first offense of simple neglect of duty and considering the numerous tasks she has to perform under a single sala court, having the sole responsibility of serving court processes, enforcing summonses, writs of execution, small claims, and other court matters delegated or assigned to her coming from six (6) municipalities: Indang, Magallanes, Maragondon, Mendez, Naic, and Ternate, in Cavite, the penalty of admonition with warning is only proper.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to REDOCKET this matter as a regular administrative matter and finds respondent Ma. Carolina M. Potente, Sheriff IV, Branch 15, Regional Trial Court, Naic Cavite, GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty. She is hereby ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at 5.
3.Id. at 2.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 2-3.
8.Id. at 3.
9.Id. at 22-32.
10.Id. at 22.
11. Civil Case No. M-SCC-19-16, entitled "Sps. Magno R. Perena & Diana Marie Perena v. Sps. Harold Jay Rocillo & Donna Lyn Rocillo,'' id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 23.
14.Id. at 57-60.
15.Id. at 60.
16.Tablate v. Rañeses, 574 Phil. 536, 545 (2008), citing Sps. Morta v. Judge Bagagñan, 461 Phil. 312, 322-323 (2003).
17.Nadala v. Denilla, A.M. No. P-18-3864, June 10, 2019, citing Anico v. Pilipiña, 670 Phil. 460, 470 (2011).
18.Rollo, p. 59.
19.Anico v. Pilipiña, supra note 17.
20.Id.
21.Rollo, p. 59.
22.Zamudio v. Auro, 593 Phil. 575, 582 (2008).
23. Rule 10, Section 50, D (1).
24.In re: Basada, A.M. No. P-15-3337, July 22, 2015.
25. 489 Phil. 273 (2005).
26.Id. at 281.
27. 715 Phil. 318 (2013).
28.Id. at 334.