A.M. No. P-17-3676 (formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3985-P). June 05, 2017
ELEANOR OLYMPIA-GERONILLA AND EMMA OLYMPIA GUTIERREZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BEATRIZ O. GERONILLA-VILLEGAS, COMPLAINANTS, V. RICARDO V. MONTEMAYOR, JR., SHERIFF IV AND ATTY. LUNIN…
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
dated October 15, 2012 for dereliction of duty, serious misconduct,
negligence, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service filed by
complainants Eleanor Olympia-Geronilla and Emma Olympia-Gutierrez,
represented by Atty. Beatriz O. Geronilla-Villegas (complainants)
against respondents Sheriff Ricardo V. Montemayor, Jr. (Sheriff
Montemayor) and Clerk of Court Atty. Luningning Y. Centron (Atty.
Centron; respondents), both from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court (OCC-RTC) of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro.
The Facts
Complainants alleged that they are the plaintiffs in an ejectment case entitled “Eleanor Olympia and Emma Olympia v. Carlito Aceveda and Tolentino Malinao,”
docketed as Civil Case No. 327 (ejectment case) filed before the First
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Province of Oriental Mindoro (MCTC).[2] On October 29, 2004, Judge Edgardo M. Padilla (Judge Padilla) of the MCTC rendered a Decision[3]
in favor of complainants, directing defendants therein Carlito T.
Aceveda (Aceveda), Tolentino Malinao (Malinao; defendants), and all
persons claiming rights under them to: (a) vacate the property subject of the dispute; (b) remove whatever structures they may have erected thereon, at their own expense; (c)
pay complainants P50,000.00 every four (4) months beginning November
2002 as reasonable compensation for the value of the crops being
appropriated by defendants until they surrender possession to
complainants; and (d) pay P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of
suit.[4]
In view of the MCTC’s favorable decision, complainants filed a
Motion for Immediate Execution thereof; on the other hand, defendants
appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Branch 40 (RTC).[5]
Meanwhile, on July 1, 2005, the MCTC issued a Writ of Execution[6] directing the implementation of its October 29, 2004 Decision.[7]
Subsequently, in a Decision[8] dated May 4, 2007, the RTC denied defendants’ appeal and affirmed the MCTC’s Decision in toto. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order[9] dated May 28, 2007.[10]
Notwithstanding the RTC’s affirmance of the MCTC’s Decision
and the issuance of a writ of execution, the judgment in favor of the
complainants remained unsatisfied. Thus, they filed an Urgent Motion for
Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution, which the MCTC granted. An alias
writ of execution[11] was issued on July 29, 2010.[12]
Aceveda refused to vacate the premises despite the issuance of the
alias writ of execution. Upon Sheriff Montemayor’s instruction,
complainants filed a motion for the issuance of a Writ of Demolition,
which the MCTC granted. On May 20, 2011, a Writ of Demolition[13] was issued.[14]
From the issuance of the Writ of Demolition on May 20, 2011 to November
2011, complainants consistently and religiously coordinated with
Sheriff Montemayor for the enforcement of the MCTC Decision. However,
the latter informed them that he could not enforce the said writ upon
the portion of the property occupied by Aceveda as the same was excluded
from the scope of the judgment. Sheriff Montemayor declared that
Aceveda was able to produce “believable” documents from the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) tending to show his ownership over the portion
of the land upon which he had constructed his house. Thus, Sheriff
Montemayor advised complainants to conduct a resurvey to ascertain the
boundaries of the property that should be included in the demolition.[15]
Complainants insisted that all issues pertaining to the subject
property, particularly the portion being claimed by Aceveda, had already
been settled in the ejectment case. As such, all that Sheriff
Montemayor had to do was to enforce the judgment therein. Unfortunately,
the latter refused to do so, prompting complainants to send a letter
dated November 22, 2011 to Atty. Centron, informing her of Sheriff
Montemayor’s unjustified refusal to perform his duty of implementing the
MCTC Decision. In the letter, complainants mentioned Sheriff
Montemayor’s receipt of the amount of P10,000.00 allegedly as
operational expenses for the intended demolition.[16]
On December 23, 2011, Sheriff Montemayor advised complainants that he
had scheduled the demolition on December 27, 2011 and asked for
additional funds. Acceding to the request in the hope that the favorable
decision will finally be enforced, complainants gave the amount of
P15,000.00 to Sheriff Montemayor, for which the latter signed an
acknowledgment receipt.[17]
Unfortunately, the scheduled demolition did not push through because of
alleged flooding in Baco, Oriental Mindoro. Nonetheless, Sheriff
Montemayor assured complainants that he will undertake the demolition on
January 2, 2012, which never transpired at all. Instead, he suggested
that complainants secure permission from the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources-Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(DENR-CENRO) to cover the improvements on the portion of the premises
occupied by Aceveda. Despite the cancellation of the demolition, Sheriff
Montemayor failed to return the P15,000.00 given to him as expenses
therefor.
Complainants reported[18]
the matter to Atty. Centron, who, however, failed to take appropriate
action on Sheriff Montemayor’s unwarranted refusal to carry out the
demolition. Hence, the instant administrative case against both Sheriff
Montemayor and Atty. Centron for dereliction of duty, serious
misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
In his defense,[19]
Sheriff Montemayor denied having received the amount of P10,000.00 as
alleged operational funds for the demolition, maintaining that there was
no proof of his receipt thereof other than complainants’ bare
allegation.[20] However, he
admitted receipt of the P15,000.00, which he claimed was distributed as
financial assistance among the Mangyans who voluntarily agreed to vacate
and remove their structures on the subject premises.[21] He argued that, contrary to complainants’ allegation, Section 10,[22]
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on sheriffs fees did not apply in this
case as the P15,000.00 that he received and gave as financial assistance
to the Mangyans cannot be considered as sheriff’s fees.[23]
As regards his refusal to demolish Aceveda’s structure on the premises,
he explained that he had doubts on whether Aceveda’s house was truly
within complainants’ property. It was because of this uncertainty that
he advised complainants to conduct a resurvey of the property, but they
never cooperated.[24]
For her part, Atty. Centron asserted[25]
that she never tolerated Sheriff Montemayor’s alleged dereliction of
duty nor did she fail to act on complainants’ concerns after they were
brought to her attention. In fact, she gave Sheriff Montemayor written
directives to carry out the writ of demolition and even reminded him of
the money judgment contained in the MCTC’s Decision, which he must also
enforce in favor of complainants. Likewise, in light of Sheriff
Montemayor’s advice to conduct a resurvey, Atty. Centron sought
complainants’ cooperation by asking that they provide a surveyor for the
expeditious resolution of the matter.[26]
Atty. Centron pointed out that the delays attendant to the demolition
were caused by Sheriff Montemayor’s belief that Acevedo’s house was not
within the property of complainants, at the same time maintaining that
he (Sheriff Montemayor) never deliberately intended to obstruct or cause
such delay.[27]
The Report and Recommendation of the
Office of the Court Administrator
In its Report[28] dated January 13, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended, inter alia,
that Sheriff Montemayor be found guilty of dereliction of duty, grave
misconduct, and dishonesty, and fined in the amount of P40,000.00 in
view of his previous dismissal from the service. Likewise, the OCA
recommended that Atty. Centron be held liable for simple neglect of duty
and fined in the amount of P10,000.00, with a stem warning that a
repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.[29]
In its evaluation, the OCA held that Sheriff Montemayor
exceeded his authority and substituted his own judgment when he deferred
the implementation of the writ of demolition based on his own belief
that the property in dispute had to be resurveyed, forgetting that a
sheriff has no discretion on whether to execute a judgment or not.
Neither can he choose as to which portion of a property should be
included or excluded in the execution.[30]
With respect to his receipt of the aggregate amount of P25,000.00 from
complainants, the OCA found no proof that Sheriff Montemayor indeed
received the initial amount of P10,000.00. With regard, however, to the
amount of P15,000.00 which he admittedly received, the OCA did
not give credence to his allegation that the said amount was distributed
to the Mangyans. Instead, it found him liable for violation of the
procedural steps that sheriffs are mandated to comply with relative to
the fees and expenses in implementing court processes, pursuant to
Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. In particular, Sheriff
Montemayor did not secure court approval with respect to the P15,000.00
he admittedly received, which is tantamount to an unlawful exaction,
thereby making him administratively liable.[31]
In sum, the OCA found Sheriff Montemayor liable for
dereliction of duty on account of his failure and refusal to enforce the
writ of execution and writ of demolition. For demanding and receiving
money without court approval in violation of Section 10, Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, he is liable as well for grave misconduct and
dishonesty, for which the prescribed penalty is dismissal. However, in
light of his previous dismissal from the service,[32]
the OCA recommended that he instead be fined in the amount of
P40,000.00, which shall be deducted from the monetary value of his
accumulated leave credits, if sufficient; otherwise, he shall pay said
amount directly to the Court.[33]
Similarly, the OCA found Atty. Centron remiss in the performance of her
duties as Clerk of Court in view of her failure to effectively
supervise Sheriff Montemayor in carrying out his tasks. While it may be
true that she had called his attention by directing and/or reminding him
to enforce the writ of demolition in this case, her failure to
effectively address the matter that complainants had brought to her
attention makes her liable for simple neglect of duty, for which the OCA
recommended the alternative penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00
in lieu of suspension to prevent undue adverse effect on public
service.[34]
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not
respondents Sheriff Montemayor and Atty. Centron should be held
administratively liable, as recommended by the OCA.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the OCA.
In Lucas v. Dizon,[35] the Court declared:
The last standing frontier that the victorious litigant must
face is often another difficult process – the execution stage. In this
stage, a litigant who has won the battle might lose the war. Thus, the
sheriffs, being agents of the court, play an important role,
particularly in the matter of implementing the writ of execution.
Indeed, [sheriffs] “are tasked to execute final judgments of 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 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 order, they cannot afford to
err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient
administration of justice.”[36] (Emphasis supplied)
Engraved in jurisprudence is the rule that 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.[37]
In this case, Sheriff Montemayor’s mandated task was to
implement the MCTC’s Decision in favor of complainants. However, instead
of doing so, he substituted his own judgment and acted on his own
belief that a specific portion of the subject property should be
excluded from the execution. He refused to demolish the house of
defendant Aceveda and vehemently insisted that the subject property must
first be resurveyed, unduly causing delay in the implementation of the
MCTC Decision, to the prejudice of the prevailing parties, i.e., the complainants.
Sheriff Montemayor’s failure to enforce the alias writ of
execution and writ of demolition clearly renders him liable for
dereliction of duty. He overstepped his authority and conveniently
overlooked the ministerial nature of a sheriffs duty in the execution of
judgments. Instead of enforcing the MCTC’s orders, he exercised his
discretion and supplanted his own judgment for that of the court’s. To
reiterate, the duty of a sheriff to execute a writ is purely
ministerial, and he has no discretion to delay the execution thereof.
Absent
any instruction by a court to the contrary, he is mandated to proceed
with reasonable celerity and promptness in implementing the writ.[38] If for any reason, he cannot do so in part or in full, his duty is outlined in Section 14,[39] Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which, unfortunately, he likewise failed to observe.
As regards the amount of P15,000.00 that Sheriff Montemayor
had admittedly received from complainants as additional expenses for the
cancelled demolition and which he claimed had been distributed among
the Mangyans who voluntarily vacated the premises, the Court concurs
with the OCA’s finding that the said money was beyond the ambit of
allowable fees that a sheriff may receive in the implementation of
writs. Moreover, Sheriff Montemayor failed to observe the following
procedure laid down in Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court with
respect to sheriff’s expenses: (1) the sheriff is required to secure the
court’s prior approval of the estimated expenses and fees needed to
implement the court process; (2) the requesting party shall deposit such
amount with the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, who shall
disburse the same to the executing sheriff subject to his liquidation
within the same period for rendering a return on the process or writ;
and (3) any unspent amount shall be refunded to the requesting party who
made the deposit.
Indisputably, the sum of P15,000.00 received by Sheriff
Montemayor without the approval of the court cannot be considered as
lawful sheriff’s fees. As such, his receipt thereof is tantamount to an
unlawful exaction for which he must be held liable for grave misconduct
and dishonesty.[40] A
sheriff’s conduct of unilaterally demanding sums of money from a
party-litigant purportedly to defray expenses of execution, without
obtaining the approval of the trial court for such supposed expense and
without rendering an accounting constitutes dishonesty and extortion and
falls short of the required standards of public service. Such conduct
threatens the very existence of the system of administration of justice.[41]
Grave misconduct and dishonesty are grave offenses each punishable by
dismissal on the first offense under Section 46 (A), Rule 10 of the
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).[42]
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is likewise a
grave offense which carries the penalty of suspension for six (6) months
and one (1) day to one (1) year, and dismissal on the second offense.
However, as records show that Sheriff Montemayor had been previously
meted the penalty of dismissal,[43]
the Court instead imposes on him the penalty of fine in the amount of
P40,000.00, which amount shall be deducted from the monetary value of
his accrued credit leaves, if sufficient; otherwise, he shall pay the
amount directly to the Court.
Similarly, Atty. Centron should be
held administratively liable for her failure to take a more decisive
action against Sheriff Montemayor’s unwarranted refusal to enforce the
MCTC Decision in favor of complainants. Although she may have advised
and/or reminded him with respect to the performance of his duties, her
apparently lackadaisical attitude in this matter evinces a similar
failure on her part to perform her duty of effectively supervising him.
Moreover, instead of taking Sheriff Montemayor’s stance that a resurvey
should be conducted on the subject property based on his groundless
belief that a portion thereof should be excluded from the judgment, she
should have firmly reminded him of his mandated ministerial task of
implementing writs promptly and expeditiously, and that he had no
discretion with regard to the merits of the judgment. Atty. Centron’s
failure in this respect renders her administratively liable for simple
neglect of duty.
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the
failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and
signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or
indifference,[44] a less grave
offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one
(1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the
second offense under Section 46 (D) of the RRACCS. However, the Court,
in several cases,[45] imposed
the penalty of fine in lieu of suspension as an alternative penalty in
order to prevent any undue adverse effect on public service which would
ensue if work were otherwise left unattended by reason of respondent’s
suspension. Therefore, the Court imposes on Atty. Centron the penalty of
fine in the amount of P10,000.00, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.
WHEREFORE, respondent Ricardo V.
Montemayor, Jr., Sheriff IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court,
Regional Trial Court, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro is found GUILTY
of dereliction of duty, grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In view of his previous
dismissal from the service, he is FINED in the amount
of P40,000.00, to be deducted from the monetary value of his accumulated
leave credits, if sufficient; otherwise, he is ordered to pay the said
amount directly to the Court. Likewise, respondent Atty. Luningning Y.
Centron, Clerk of Court VI of the same office is found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-23.
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id. at 24-33.
[4] Id. at 2. See also pp. 32-33.
[5] Id. at 2.
[6] Id. at 34-36.
[7] Id. at 2.
[8] Id. at 37-48. Penned by Judge Tomas C. Leynes.
[9] Id. at 49.
[10] Id. at 2-3.
[11] Id. at 50-52.
[12] Id. at 3.
[13] Id. at 53-54.
[14] Id. at 3.
[15] Id. at 3-4.
[16] Id. at 4.
[17] Id. at 4-5.
[18] Id. at 57-62 and 63-64.
[19] Id. at 121-127.
[20] Id. at 123.
[21] Id.
[22] Section 10. Sheriffs, Process Servers and other persons serving processes. –
x x x x
With regard to sheriffs 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
shall 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 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. 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.
[23] Rollo, p. 124.
[24] Id. at 125.
[25] Id. at 84-87.
[26] Id.
[27] Id. at 87.
[28] Id. at 155-168.
Issued by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, Deputy Court
Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva, and Chief of Office (OCA), Legal
Office Wilhelmina D. Geronga.
[29] Id. at 168.
[30] Id. at 163-164.
[31] Id. at 164-166.
[32] In a Decision dated August 2, 2016, the Court En Banc, in A.M. No. P-13-3113, formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 12-3815-P entitled “Rosemarie Gerdtman, represented by her sister and Attorney-in-fact, Rosaline Lopez Bunquin v. Ricardo V. Montemayor, Jr. x x x,” dismissed
Sheriff Montemayor from the service for grave misconduct, with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and
with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.
[33] Rollo, pp. 166-167.
[34] Id. at 167-168.
[35] 747 Phil. 88 (2014).
[36] Id. at 95-96, citing Teresa T. Gonzales La’O & Co., Inc. v. Sheriff Hatab, 386 Phil. 88, 92-93 (2000), cited in Gonzales v. Cerenio, 564 Phil. 295, 302-303 (2007).
[37] Id., citing Guerrero-Boylan v. Boyles, 674 Phil. 565 (2011) and Anico v. Pilipiña, 670 Phil. 460, 470 (2011).
[38] Garcera II v. Parrone, 502 Phil. 8, 12 (2005).
[39] 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.
[40] Beltran v. Monteroso, 593 Phil. 413 (2008), citing De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza, 493 Phil. 690 (2005); Adoma v. Gatcheco, 489 Phil. 273 (2005); and Tan v. Dela Cruz, Jr., 482 Phil. 782 (2004).
[41] Beltran v. Monteroso, id. at 417.
[42] Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 1101502 dated November 8, 2011.
[43] See footnote 32.
[44] Miranda v. Raymundo, Jr., A.M. No. P-13-3163, December 1, 2014, 743 SCRA 343, 349.
[45] Mendoza v. Esguerra, 703 Phil. 435 (2013); Zamudio v. Auro, 593 Phil. 575, 584 (2008).