THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-18-3908. November 28, 2018.]
NAPOLEON O. SABLES, petitioner, vs.ROBERTO T. GALING, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 255, AND FERNANDO A. MARTINEZ, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 202, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 28, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-18-3908 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4183-P] (Napoleon O. Sables vs. Roberto T. Galing, Sheriff IV, Branch 255, and Fernando A. Martinez, Sheriff IV, Branch 202, both of the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City). — In his Complaint-Affidavit, 1 Napoleon O. Sables (Sables) charges Roberto T. Galing (Galing), Sheriff IV, Branch 255, and Fernando A. Martinez (Martinez), Sheriff IV, Branch 202, both of the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City (collectively, Sheriffs), of violating the rules on execution of judgments and illegal collection of dues and/or bribery.
Sables alleges that the Sheriffs violated Rule 39, Section 14 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the duty of a sheriff to make a periodic report to the court on execution proceedings. He states that even after the lapse of the 30-day period following the receipt of the Writ of Execution, they did not furnish him a copy of the report, which is tantamount to contempt of court. 3
Sables charges Martinez of bribery and/or illegal collection of dues and fees. He alleges that he sent Martinez a text message following up on the Writ of Execution, but the latter replied asking for "panggastos" 4 (expenses) for the service of notice and the execution proper. 5
Sables also charges Galing of bribery and/or illegal collection of dues and fees after he received a copy of the Sheriff's Return of the Writ of Execution 6 dated April 23, 2013 that listed the following estimated expenses to implement the Writ of Execution: (1) renting a small truck for hauling worth P5,000.00; (2) four (4) personnel for hauling worth P2,000.00; (3) a storage facility for the safekeeping of personal properties worth P10,000.00; and (4) the commission of the Sheriff to be paid to the Clerk of Court worth P2,610.00, along with the Barangay Tanod and police. 7 He maintains that there was no need for a truck to haul the personal properties, and that it was illegal for sheriffs to collect commissions. 8 SDHTEC
In his Comment, 9 Galing alleges that after the issuance of the September 24, 2010 Writ of Execution, 10 he submitted a Partial Return as early as March 16, 2011, stating that the subject property has already been vacated. He further maintains that he submitted several Manifestations to the court stating that Sables had not yet coordinated with him about the Writ of Execution's implementation. Attached in his Comment are nine (9) Manifestations, dated June 23, 2011, 11 September 14, 2011, 12 December 12, 2011, 13 April 13, 2012, 14 August 17, 2012, 15 December 13, 2012, 16 February 28, 2013, 17 June 14, 2013, 18 and September 18, 2013. 19 He also alleges that the Sheriff's Return of the Writ of Execution 20 dated April 23, 2013 itemized the collection of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Since the defendant in that case refused to pay a single centavo, Galing had to resort to the levy of her personal properties. 21
For his part, Martinez, in his Comment, 22 alleges that a Writ of Execution was issued on November 22, 2012 and the Notice to Vacate the property was served on December 11, 2012. He denies that he asked for money before complying with his duty to execute the Writ, and alleges that complainant refused to shoulder the expenses for its execution. 23
In its November 3, 2015 Memorandum, 24 the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Galing and Martinez be found guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to make a report to the court every 30 days as required by law, and that a fine of P5,000.00 be imposed upon each Sheriff. 25
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not respondent Sheriffs Roberto T. Galing and Fernando A. Martinez are administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.
This Court notes the Office of the Court Administrator's Memorandum. This case is to be re-docketed as an administrative matter and, as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, this Court finds respondents guilty of simple neglect of duty.
Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides:
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. 26
Every 30 days from receiving the writ of execution, sheriffs are required to render periodic reports apprising the court and the parties of the status of the proceedings concerning the writ. 27 Failure to do so is tantamount to simple neglect of duty or "the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference." 28
When respondents failed to make periodic reports as required under the Rules of Court, they disregarded an integral part of their duty to fulfil the Writ of Execution. AScHCD
Though respondent Galing filed several Manifestations saying that complainant, along with then other plaintiffs, "have not yet coordinated as of this writing regarding the implementation of the money judgment (attorney's fees) of the [W]rit of [E]xecution," 29 these are not the periodic reports under the Rules of Court. Even if they qualify as a "report" on the Writ of Execution, they were not executed every 30 days. The Writ of Execution was issued on September 24, 2010, while the Partial Return was submitted almost six (6) months after, on March 16, 2011. 30 On the monetary judgment of attorney's fees, the nine (9) Manifestations spanned almost two (2) years; the first was submitted on June 23, 2011 31 and the last was on September 18, 2013. 32
For respondent Martinez, the Writ of Execution was issued on November 22, 2012. 33 He submitted a Sheriff's Return on December 12, 2012 34 on the service of the Writ of Execution and the Notice to Vacate to the defendants in the case then. 35 He has not submitted any other returns regarding the execution of the monetary award included in the judgment.
Considering the very nature of their functions, sheriffs should perform the duties of their office "honestly, faithfully[,] and to the best of their ability, and must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and above all else, be above suspicion." 36 Respondents' failure to observe the periodic reporting to the courts and to the litigants warrants the imposition of the appropriate penalties. They deviated from the directive of the court by failing to make the required periodic reports. 37 Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense 38 punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, 39 and dismissal from service for the second offense. 40
In Pesongco v. Estoya, 41 this Court imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) month on a sheriff for his failure to render periodic reports in violation of Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court. 42
However, complainant did not sufficiently establish the bribery charges against respondents, apart from his bare allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit. A photocopy of an Acknowledgment Receipt 43 issued by a certain Atty. Rolito A. Abing, supposedly showing the payment of the Sheriff's fee of P5,000.00, was submitted; however, it does not necessarily show that respondents were the ones who received it.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint-Affidavit filed by Napoleon O. Sables is RE-DOCKETED as an administrative matter against respondents Roberto T. Galing, Sheriff IV, Branch 255, and Fernando A. Martinez, Sheriff IV, Branch 202, both of the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City. Further, this Court finds respondents GUILTY of simple neglect of duty, and are SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day from office with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondents' personal records. AcICHD
SO ORDERED."(Peralta, J., on official business.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2. RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, sec. 14 provides:
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.
3.Rollo, p. 1.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 2.
9.Id. at 11-12.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id. at 14.
12.Id. at 15.
13.Id. at 16.
14.Id. at 17.
15.Id. at 18.
16.Id. at 19.
17.Id. at 20.
18.Id. at 21.
19.Id. at 22.
20.Id. at 23-24.
21.Id. at 11-12.
22.Id. at 25-28.
23.Id. at 26-27.
24.Id. at 34-41.
25.Id. at 37 and 41.
26. RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, sec. 14.
27.Ramos v. Ragot, 623 Phil. 673, 687 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
28.Pesongco v. Estoya, 519 Phil. 226, 242 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
29.Rollo, pp. 14-22.
30.Id. at 13.
31.Id. at 14.
32.Id. at 22.
33.Id. at 30.
34.Id. at 33.
35.Id.
36.Letter of Atty. Socorro M. Villamer-Basilla on the Conduct of Manuel L. Arimado, 517 Phil. 643, 646 (2006) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
37.See Pesongco v. Estoya, 519 Phil. 226, 241 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
38. REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, sec. 46 (D) (1).
39. REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, sec. 46 (D) (1).
40. REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, sec. 46 (D) (1).
41. 519 Phil. 226 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
42. Id. at 243.
43. Rollo, p. 8.