A.M. No. P-93-935. July 05, 1994
ILDEFONSO ONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. MAXIMO A. MEREGILDO, DEPUTY SHERIFF OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 31, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.
PER CURIAM:
Complainant Ildefonso Ong originally charged respondent Deputy
Sheriff Maximo A. Meregildo with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019,
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, before the Office of the
Ombudsman. This charge was dismissed by
the Office of the Ombudsman for lack of sufficient evidence. At the same time, the Investigating Officer
of the Office of the Ombudsman declared that the complaint was sufficient in
form and substance for purposes of initiation of an administrative
inquiry. Thus, in April 1993, Overall
Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator the Affidavit-Complaint of Ildefonso Ong for appropriate action.
On 29 June 1993, the Court referred the Indorsement of the
Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Affidavit-Complaint of complainant Ong and
related papers to the Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
City, Judge Rose Marie Alonzo-Legasto for investigation, report and
recommendation.
The Investigating
Judge held hearings on 10, 17 and 21 September 1993, 15 October 1993 and 14
January 1994. Both parties appeared at
these hearings.
On 9 March 1994, Judge Alonzo-Legasto submitted her Report and
Recommendation. We find, from this
Report and Recommendation, that the following facts are substantially
undisputed:
Respondent Deputy Sheriff Maximo Meregildo was appointed by Judge
Abraham Vera of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Quezon City, as Special
Sheriff to implement the Fourth Alias Writ of Demolition and Possession issued
in LRC Case No. 87-8187. As such
Special Sheriff, respondent Meregildo advised complainant Ong, the
successor-in-interest of the judgment creditor in LRC Case No. 87-8187, that
expenses would have to be incurred in the implementation of the Writ, e.g., expenses
for transportation of laborers and policemen to the demolition site, as well as
expenses for food of the laborers and policemen and their compensation. Respondent Sheriff advised complainant Ong
to prepare P11,000.00 as the “initial sheriff’s fees and expenses.”[1]
On 21 August 1992, respondent Deputy Sheriff received from
complainant Ong P11,000.00 in cash. Meregildo, however, failed or was unable successfully to implement the
Writ of Demolition. Respondent and
complainant agreed that a second attempt could and should be made to implement
the Fourth Alias Writ of Possession and Demolition, since such Fourth Writ had
not then expired. For this second
attempt at implementation, respondent Sheriff asked complainant Ong to prepare
an amount of P10,000.00; this amount complainant Ong delivered promptly to
respondent on 27 August 1992.
The second attempt to enforce the Fourth Alias Writ of Demolition
and Possession also produced no effects. By this time, the effectivity of the Fourth Alias Writ had expired and
the judgment creditor secured a Fifth Alias Writ of Demolition and Possession.
Respondent Sheriff again asked complainant to prepare another
P10,000.00 for the enforcement of the Fifth Alias Writ. On 17 September 1992, complainant handed
over P5,000.00 to respondent Sheriff. Two (2) days later, on 17 September 1992, respondent Sheriff received
another P20,000.00 in cash from complainant, the complainant having been told
by respondent Sheriff that that additional sum was essential for effective implementation. Respondent Sheriff repaired to the
demolition site with his group of laborers and policemen. The demolition team allegedly penetrated the
barricades set up by the squatter families sought to be ejected. However, peaceful possession of the area was
not turned over to the complainant. According to respondent Sheriff, the Office of the Mayor of Quezon City,
or the CAPCOM, had directed the policemen to back off from the area. Respondent alleged that the policemen left
the area and, fearing for his safety and that of his laborers, respondent and
his group of laborers followed suit. Complainant Ong offered in evidence five (5) receipts signed by
respondent for the sums of money referred to above, including a receipt for
P1,000.00 dated 4 November 1992, to wit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disappointed with the repeated failure of respondent Sheriff to
put him in peaceful possession of the premises involved despite the cumulative
amount of fees and expenses paid to the Sheriff, and doubting either the sincerity
or the ability or both of respondent to deliver possession of the premises to
complainant, complainant Ong demanded the return of the total amount of
P47,000.00 from respondent Sheriff. Respondent Sheriff alleged that most of the various
sums had already been spent and offered to return an “unspent
portion” of P8,800.00. Thereupon,
complainant Ong filed his Affidavit-Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman
which, as noted, referred the same to this Court for appropriate administration
action.
Respondent Sheriff submitted to the Investigating Judge, by way
of comment on the complaint, his “Explanation” or accounting of the
monies he had received. This
“Explanation” read, in relevant part, as follows:
“x x x x x x x
x x
The amount of P47,000.00 collected by me from Mr. Ong was properly
receipted to show that there was good faith in my intention that the said
amount would be solely spent for the costs of the implementation such as food,
costs of labor, transportation, voluntary police allowances and other
incidental expenses. The said amount of
P47,000.00 was actually spent for the said purposes not only for the
implementation of the Fifth Alias Writ but also for the prior writ which was
the Fourth Alias Writ dated 16 June 1992. A scrutiny of the Receipts reveal that the Receipt under date of August
21, 1992 in the amount of P11,000.00 and the Receipt under date of August 27,
1992 in the amount of P10,000.00 were spent during which the Fourth alias Writ
was still in effect and has not yet expired. With respect to the Receipt under date of September 15, 1992, receipt
under date of September 17, 1992 and the receipt under date of November 4, 1992
were spent for the purposes during which the Fifth Alias Writ was still in effect
and has not yet expired. Said receipts
are hereto attached and respectively marked as Annexes ‘D,’ ‘E,’ ‘F,’ ‘G’ AND
‘H.’
A mathematical calculation would show that the amount of P11,000.00
under Receipt dated August 21, 1992 (Annex D) which was actually spent on
August 24, 1992 represented the following to:
Labor for 35 laborers
at P150.00 per person………………… … … … … … … P
5,250.00
Food expenses for 35
laborers and 20 policemen
at P50.00 /person………………………………………….. P
3,250.00
Jeepney Rent at P800.00
per jeep of three jeeps……………… …… … … … … …
P 2,400.00
T O T A L P10,900.00
With regards to the amount of P10,000.00 under Receipt dated August
27,1992 (Annex E) was actually spent on August 26, 1992 for the following:
Labor for 35 laborers at
P150.00 per person………………… … … … … … … … P 5,250.00
Food expenses for 35
laborers and 20 policemen
at P50.00/person…………………………………… … … P 3,250.00
Jeepney rent for three
jeepneys at P700.00
per jeepney…………..………………………… … … … … P
2,100.00
T
O T A L P10,600.00
It can be noted that there was an excess of the amount of P600.00
and said amount was shouldered by herein complainant.
The amount of P5,000.00 and P20,000.00 under Receipts of September
15 and 17, 1992 (Annexes F and G) were actually spent for the same purposes on
September 17, 1992 and which represented the following:
Labor for 50 laborers
at P150.00/person….. … … … … … … … … … … …
… P 5,250.00
Food expenses for 35
laborers and 20 policemen
at P50.00/person……………….………………… … … …P
3,250.00
Jeepney rent for three
jeepneys at P700.00 per
jeepney…………….………………………… … … … … ..P
2,100.00
T O T A L P16,200.00
Of the amount of P25,000.00, on the amount of P16,200.00 and the
unspent portion thereof was in the amount of P8,800.00 and said amount was
retain by me to be spent again for future implementations.
With regards to the last amount mentioned in the amount of
P1,000.00 under Receipt dated November 4, 1992 was actually spent for
transportation and food allowances for laborers on November 5, 1992 but said
implementation had to be postponed because of lack of security police
assistance plus on the account of bad weather. The excess amount of P8,800.00 was actually spent during the
implementation of the Sixth Alias Writ on April 22 and 23, 1993.
xxx xxx xxx“[2]
The complainant, on the witness stand, controverted the
explanation rendered by respondent Sheriff. He stated that respondent had charged him the amount of P200.00 per
laborer employed and not merely P150.00. Complainant, who had physically accompanied respondent Sheriff to the
demolition site during the attempts to enforce the Writ, stated that respondent
Sheriff had only fifteen (15) men to a team and not thirty-five (35) or more
persons as alleged by respondent. Moreover, complainant saw only one (1) owner-type vehicle, for the
personal use of another sheriff who was assisting respondent; complainant saw
no evidence of the three (3) or four (4) public utility jeeps respondent had
allegedly hired. Further, complainant
claimed that he had paid for the cost of food for the policemen, over and above
the amounts he had delivered to respondent Sheriff. Complainant’s testimony in this respect follows:
“Q: What other items did you find that are not correct?
A: For
the expenses of the policemen, sir, I usually pay for the food of the policemen
if there is any.
Q: In
other words, the Sheriff did not spend this amount?
A: I did not pay for the policemen (sic) food, sir. I usually gave him for the food of the
policemen, sir.
Q: If
you paid the food…
A: Aside from the money I gave to Meregildo, sir, the payment I
gave to this policemen was from my own
pocket and is not included in P47,000.00.
Court:
Are you insinuating Mr.
Ong that aside from the money you gave to this respondent, you spend (sic)
personally?
Witness:
Yes, your Honor, for the policemen.
Court:
For what date?
Witness:
This August 27, your
Honor.
Court:
August 21?
Atty. Linzag:
Well, I think that was
the implementation of the writ, your Honor.
Witness:
Yes,
your Honor, for the implementation of the writ I usually pay for the food of
the policemen, your Honor.
Court:
For all the writs?
Witness:
Yes, your Honor, not
for the laborers, your Honor, for the policemen.
Court:
So, you mean you gave directly to the policemen aside from the money you
give (sic) to the Sheriff?
Witness:
Yes, your Honor.
Court:
How much did you give to these policemen?
Witness:
Actual expenses, your Honor.
Court:
How much?
Atty. Linzag:
For food?
Witness:
P3,000.00,
your Honor, sometime (sic) we
are eating (sic) at the Tropical Hut, your Honor.”[3]
(Underscoring supplied)
Upon examination of the evidence presented by the parties, the
Investigating Judge concluded that the behavior of respondent Sheriff was,
under the circumstances, highly irregular and prejudicial to the best interest
of the service.
We agree with the Investigating Judge’s view that Section 9 of
Rule 141, as amended, of the Rules of Court is applicable. This Section reads in part as follows:
“Sec. 9. Sheriffs,
and other persons serving processes.
x x x x x x x x x
(g) For executing a writ of process to place a party in possession
of real estate, one hundred (P100.00) pesos;
x x x x x x x x x
In addition to the fees hereinabove, fixed, the party requesting
the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay
the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process or
safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including
kilometrage for each kilometer of
travel, guard’s fees, warehousing and
similar charges, in an amount estimated
by the sheriff, subject to the approval
of the court. Upon approval of said
estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the
clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect
the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the
party making the deposit. A full report
shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the
sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor. (7a).”[4] (Underscoring
supplied)
Respondent Sheriff failed grievously to comply with the above
requirements of Section 9. Respondent
knew, or should have known, that he had to present his cost estimates for
implementation of the Writ of Demolition and Possession to the court issuing
that Writ for its approval. He did not
do so. Respondent Sheriff repeatedly
charged and collected from complainant sums of money without approval of the
Court; he did not deposit the sums received from complainant with the Clerk of
Court who, under Section 9, was then authorized to disburse the same to
respondent Sheriff to effect implementation of the Writ. We note also that respondent Sheriff made no
mention in the Final Sheriff’s Return which he submitted to Judge Vera, of the
amounts of monies he had received from complainant. It does not appear that he submitted any liquidation of such
amounts to the trial court, before the
present administrative complaint was instituted.[5]
Respondent Sheriff attempted to defend the
“reasonableness” of the amounts he had charged and received from the
complainant, and tried to explain his repeated failure to execute the
Writ. Respondent claimed that the Writ
of Demolition was directed against sixty (60) families, more or less, of
squatters illegally occupying the parcel of land here involved, located in
Bagong Bantay, Quezon City. These
squatter families had refused to leave voluntarily and so had to be ejected by
force. When respondent allegedly tried
to implement the Fourth Writ, the police contingent he had allegedly arranged
for was supposedly not dispatched by their commanding officer in view of a
heavy rain on that day. On his alleged
second attempt to enforce the Writ, bad weather again prevented the success of
his efforts. He assured complainant
that they would try once more as soon as the weather cleared up. On the next attempt, he alleged that,
although prepared to demolish the structures found in the premises, he acceded
to the request of counsel of the squatters for “peaceful settlement of the
conflict.”[6]
The Investigating Judge was not persuaded by the explanations
offered by respondent Sheriff. Investigating Judge Alonzo-Legasto stated that the amounts charged and
collected from the complainant were exorbitant and highly disproportionate to
the actual service rendered by the laborers purportedly retained by respondent
Sheriff. She believed that there was no
justification for employing as many as fifty (50) laborers and fifty (50)
policemen for enforcing the Writ. The
Investigating Judge dismissed respondent Sheriff’s accounting of sums received
as “too simplistic,” x x x and unworthy of credence and highly improbable.”[7] The Court agrees with the Investigating
Judge that respondent Sheriff was dishonest in rendering his accounting of
expenses actually incurred (if any). Respondent Sheriff’s explanations are strained to an extreme; in any
case, “reasonableness” of the amounts charged and collected and
received by respondent is not a defense. For respondent clearly ignored the procedures laid down in Section 9 of
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
The Investigating Judge recommended suspension for respondent
Sheriff. The Court, however, is
convinced that the inculpatory acts committed by respondent Sheriff are very
serious and call for a more severe penalty. Respondent Sheriff Maximo A. Meregildo is an officer of the court. As such, he forms an integral part of the
administration of justice, since he is called upon to serve the orders and
writs and execute all processes of the court.[8] As
such, he is required to live up to strict standards of honesty and integrity in
public service.[9]
His conduct must at all times be characterized by honesty and openness and must
constantly be above suspicion.[10]
Respondent Sheriff’s unilaterally and repeatedly demanding sums of money from a
party-litigant purportedly to defray expenses of execution, without obtaining
the approval of the trial court for such purported expense and without
rendering to that court an accounting thereof, in effect constituted dishonesty
and extortion. That conduct, therefore,
fell too far short of the required standards of public service. Such conduct is threatening to the very
existence of the system of administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Maximo A.
Meregildo, Deputy Sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 31 of Quezon
City, is hereby FOUND GUILTY of serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service, and is hereby DISMISSED from office, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of government, including government owned or controlled
corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunanan, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
[1]
See Par. 7, Affidavit-Complaint of Ildefonso Ong, Records, p. 9.
[2]
Explanation of respondent Maximo Merigildo, Records, p. 109.
[3]
TSN, 17 September 1993, pp. 13-14.
[4]
Section 9 of Rule 141, as amended by the Resolution of the Supreme Court En
Banc dated 4 September 1990, effective on 2 November 1990. This Resolution of the Court was published in
two (2) newspapers of general circulation — The Philippine Daily Inquirer and
The Manila Bulletin -- on 19 September 1990.
Prior to the amendment of Rule 141,
its section relating to sheriffs and other persons serving process read, in
relevant part, as follows:
“Sec. 7. Sheriffs, and other persons serving
process. — (a) For executing process, preliminary, incidental, and
final or any court, for each kilometer of travel in the service of process,
reckoned from the place of service to the place to which the process is
executed by a municipal deputy sheriff residing in the municipality where the party served is, such office shall receive the
fees for the service of the process, without kilometrage; provided that the party
requiring the process shall deposit with the Court from which the process
is requested, at the time of filing
of the petition or request for process, the estimated cost of expenses for kilometrage and per diems to be
incurred by the Sheriff, of not less than P200, subject to refund of the
excess or payment of deficit.
x x x x x x x x x
(g) For executing a writ of process
to put a person in possession of real estate, eight pesos;
x x x x x x x x x”
(Underscoring supplied)
[5]
The Court notes also that the amount actually “prepared” by
complainant for respondent Sheriff, upon request or instruction of respondent
Sheriff, probably exceeded P47,000.00 and might in fact have reached as much as
P135,000.00. The Investigating Judge,
however, interpreted her authority and commission very narrowly and refused to
inquire into additional sums allegedly given to respondent Sheriff. See testimony of complainant Ildefonso Ong
which reads as follows:
“Court: You
said there is an additional, not only, P47,000.00. How much now? Is
there a receipt for the additional?
Ildefonso Ong: The amount went up to P135,000.00, your Honor.
Court: Up
to the 5th Alias?
Ildefonso Ong: No, your Honor, up to the 6th. After the 5th it was P55,000.00, your
Honor. I will try to get the receipt your Honor, which is……
Court: What
was investigated by the …
Ildefonso Ong: Yes, your Honor. It is only
the 5th Alias, Your Honor.
Atty.
Arcilla: But the explanation, your
Honor please includes the …
Court: But my only authority is to find out whether the amount of P47,000.00 is exorbitant.
Ildefonso Ong: I could show…
Atty.
Mijares: But, your Honor, the complaint filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman, your Honor, the total amount is only P47,000.00.
Atty.
Arcilla: Yes, your Honor, but the explanation by the respondent himself on page
4 represents the additional amount of P10,000.00 was listed on April 21, 1993
and made an Annex ‘L’ of the Explanation itself, your Honor.
Court: In
the explanation of?
Atty. Arcilla: The respondent, your Honor,
Annex ‘I’ page
4 should I say, your Honor.
Atty.
Mijares: Your Honor, let me clarify,
your Honor. Are they saying that they
are making basis of the alleged excess amount of P47,000.00 on the Answer of my
client, your Honor?
Atty. Arcilla: No, it is not the basis, your Honor. It is the affidavit complaint itself, but I
just made question it along because it was mentioned also by the respondent
with his own explanation.
Court: Where is the administrative case
before the Ombudsman? So my authority
is administrative matter referred for investigation report and recommendation
on the P47,000.00.
Atty. Arcilla: Yes, your Honor.
Atty.
Mijares: So, in other words, the
Honorable Court cannot hear or acquire jurisdiction over the investigation in
excess of P47,000.00.
Court: Why did you not submit the
additional amount before the Ombudsman if there was so?
Atty.
Arcilla: We filed it earlier, your
Honor please …
Court: If you filed it earlier where
did you file it?
Atty.
Arcilla: Because the additional amount
is already April 1992, your Honor.
Court: And when did you file a case with
the Ombudsman?
Atty.
Mijares: As per our record, your Honor, the affidavit-complaint filed before
the Ombudsman was dated December 16, 1992, your Honor.
Ildefonso
Ong: My lawyer was mislead, your Honor, because before …
Court: Well, I don’t know between you and your lawyer. If you’re
misleading your lawyer I don’t know.
Atty.
Mijares: I suggest, your Honor, to expedite
the proceedings, your Honor, why don’t they file a motion or whatever with
discretion so that the Court will be clarified.
Atty. Arcilla: Let’s just stick to P47,000.00, your
Honor.
Court: So, we will just investigate up to
the P47,000.00?
Ildefonso
Ong: Yes, your Honor.” (TSN, 10 September 1993, pp. 4-7; underscoring
supplied).
[6]
TSN, 21 September 1993, pp. 6-7, 13, 29 et seq.
[7]
Report of Judge Alonzo-Legasto, Records, p. 188.
[8]
Vicente To vs. Alfredo Distor, Adm. Matter No. P-2529, 19 December
1981.
[9]
See Young vs. Momblan, Adm. Matter P-89-367, 9 January 1992; Mejia vs.
Pamaran, 160 SCRA 477 (1988).
[10]
Young vs. Momblan, Ibid; Llanes vs. Borja, 192 SCRA 288
(1990).