ROGELIO V. URBANOZO, COMPLAINANT, VS. CRISANTO T. FLORA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BAGUIO CITY, RESPONDENT.

Urbanozo versus Flora

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Rogelio V. Urbanozo charges Sheriff Crisanto T. Flora, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, with gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, the latter consisting of falsification of official documents. The complaint arises from the sheriff's handling of a writ of execution in a civil case for breach of contract and collection of sum of money. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the standards governing sheriffs as frontline officers of the judiciary, the mandatory periodic reporting of unsatisfied writs, the strict procedure for collecting sheriff's expenses, and the penalty of dismissal with its accessory consequences.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator dated July 18, 2005. The Office of the Court Administrator directed the respondent to comment, and he filed his comment dated September 10, 2005. In its memorandum dated March 6, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator found the respondent liable for gross neglect of duty and recommended his dismissal from the service without forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court, sitting en banc through a per curiam resolution, agreed with the findings and adopted the recommendation with modification.

Facts

In a civil case for breach of contract and collection of sum of money, the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 4, issued a writ of execution dated February 20, 2001, and the writ was assigned to the respondent sheriff for implementation. The complainant alleged that the respondent asked for 5,000 pesos to cover fees and expenses for enforcing the writ, and that the respondent did not issue a receipt. The respondent admitted receiving the 5,000 pesos to defray his expenses in traveling from Baguio City to Cordon, Isabela to enforce the writ.

The respondent went to Cordon, Isabela, but found no Registry of Deeds there. He went to the Office of the Municipal Assessor to look for property registered in the names of the judgment debtors, but the Municipal Assessor happened to be one of the debtors herself, and she refused to furnish him the information. He found a vehicle belonging to the debtors, but it was already the subject of another writ of replevin. He was suspended from August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002, and all writs and processes assigned to him were turned over to the Office of the Clerk of Court.

Several follow-ups by the complainant yielded nothing until May 26, 2005, when the respondent gave the complainant's daughter a copy of a sheriff's return dated June 15, 2001. The complainant learned that no copy of the return had ever been submitted to the court. The Officer in Charge clerk of court issued a certification dated June 2, 2005 that the writ had been returned unsatisfied and that the return was submitted to the court of origin only on May 27, 2005. The respondent admitted that he submitted the return only on that date, after the branch clerk of court inquired about it in March 2005.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty for failing to enforce the writ of execution with dispatch and for failing to submit the required periodic reports.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct for demanding and receiving 5,000 pesos without observing the procedure for sheriff's expenses and without issuing a receipt.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct for submitting a dubious, apparently ante-dated sheriff's return.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal, with its accessory consequences, is proper given the respondent's prior offenses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Rule 39 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 days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reasons 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 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.

This provision fixes the respondent's ministerial duty to report within thirty days and every thirty days thereafter, which he failed to do for more than four years.

Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 10. Sheriffs, Process Servers and other persons serving processes. With regard to sheriff's expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards' fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party should pay said expenses 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 each 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. The liquidation shall be approved by the court. 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.

This provision prescribes the estimate, approval, deposit, disbursement, liquidation, and refund procedure that the respondent bypassed when he demanded and received the money directly.

Section 9 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides:

Section 9. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits and the disqualification for re-employment in the government service. Further, it may be imposed without prejudice to criminal liability.

This provision supplies the accessory consequences of the penalty imposed on the respondent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's gross negligence was evident. The writ was assigned to him on February 20, 2001, more than five months before his suspension took effect on August 1, 2001. In that entire time he went only once to Cordon, Isabela, failed to satisfy the judgment, and did not report the failure to the court within thirty days as required. He simply stopped enforcing the writ and submitted his return only on May 27, 2005, more than four years later. His suspension could not excuse him, because he had more than enough time to act and, at the very least, should have informed the court immediately that the judgment was unsatisfied. The Court stressed that sheriffs have the ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness, that good faith is of no moment, and that the periodic reporting requirement exists to update the court, to let it measure the efficiency of court processes, and to ensure the speedy execution of decisions.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent committed misconduct. Under Section 10 of Rule 141, the sheriff must first estimate the expenses, secure the court's approval, and have the interested party deposit the amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, subject to liquidation and refund of any unspent amount. The respondent never submitted an estimate, demanded and received 5,000 pesos on his own, issued no receipt, did not advise the complainant of the proper procedure, and never liquidated the amount.

On the third issue, the Court held that the return was dubious, apparently ante-dated, and the submission a mere afterthought. The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply where there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and the clerk of court's certification was such evidence. The Court defined misconduct as intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, and held that it becomes grave where substantial evidence shows acts corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constituting flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules. The respondent's actuations constituted flagrant disregard of the law.

On the fourth issue, the Court noted that this was not the respondent's first offense. He had previously been fined 5,000 pesos for failure to exercise reasonable diligence, and had been suspended for one year for gross discourtesy, each time with a stern warning. Having miserably failed to live up to the exacting standards of public office, he deserved the extreme penalty of dismissal.

Doctrine

Sheriffs are ranking officers of the court and agents of the law, and they have the ministerial duty to execute writs with reasonable celerity and promptness, unless restrained by a court order. Good faith is of no moment, because they are presumed to know their duties. Under Section 14 of Rule 39, a sheriff must report to the court within thirty days if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full, and must make periodic reports every thirty days until the judgment is satisfied or the writ's effectivity expires. Under Section 10 of Rule 141, sheriff's expenses must be estimated by the sheriff, approved by the court, deposited with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, disbursed to the sheriff, liquidated, and any unspent amount refunded; a direct demand and receipt of money without a receipt and without liquidation is misconduct. Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, and it is grave where substantial evidence shows acts corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constituting flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules. The presumption of regularity of official acts yields to clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Under Section 9 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, dismissal carries cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations, and ordered him to return the 5,000 pesos to the complainant within ten days from receipt of notice.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that a sheriff must report an unsatisfied writ within thirty days and every thirty days thereafter, and that he may not collect his expenses directly from a party but only through the estimate, approval, deposit, and liquidation procedure. Examiners like to use this case on the ministerial duty of sheriffs, on the grave misconduct of demanding money without a receipt, and on the accessory penalties of dismissal under the Omnibus Rules.