VENTURA B.  AYO,  COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LUCIA VIOLAGO-ISNANI, BRANCH   CLERK OF COURT JAIME M. LUY, SHERIFF JADI  HATAB, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI, CLERK OF COURT…

Ayo versus Violago-Isnani

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Ventura B. Ayo, the representative of a widow and her minor children who were prevailing plaintiffs in a civil case for damages, against several court personnel and a judge. The complaint charges delay and misconduct in the enforcement of a writ of execution and partiality in the conduct of a hearing. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by clerks of court who are also ex officio sheriffs, and it reminds every reviewee that execution is not a mere afterthought but the very life of the law.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a verified complaint directly with the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. After the respondents submitted their respective comments, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its evaluation and recommendation. It recommended that the case be re-docketed as an administrative matter as regards Clerk of Court Jaime M. Luy, that he be admonished and warned, and that the case against the other respondents be dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court then resolved the case as an administrative matter, adopting the recommendation in part but imposing a heavier penalty on Clerk of Court Luy.

Facts

Ventura Ayo represented Vilma Aquino and her minor children, the plaintiffs in a civil case for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. In an amended decision rendered in September 1996, the trial court, through Judge Lucia Violago-Isnani, awarded the plaintiffs indemnity for the death of Ireneo Aquino, compensation for loss of earning capacity, actual damages, and moral damages. A writ of execution was issued in July 1997.

Instead of promptly sending the writ to the proper court in Bataan, Clerk of Court Jaime Luy released it to the complainant for delivery only in December 1997, and even then he endorsed it to the Balanga branch, which had no territorial jurisdiction to enforce it. The writ was later referred to the Dinalupihan branch. The complainant alleged that the clerk of court there, Joey Astorga, sat on the writ for a month, and that Sheriff Jadi Hatab and Clerk of Court Erlinda Perez refused or failed to act. Each respondent explained that the writ was either not addressed to him or was promptly referred to the proper office, and that the complainant himself failed to deposit the sheriff's expenses.

The complainant also charged Judge Isnani with partiality. He claimed that during the hearing of his motion to disqualify counsel, the judge humiliated him for not being a lawyer and prevented him from speaking. The judge explained that she had merely required him to furnish the counsel he sought to disqualify with a copy of his motion, in the interest of fair play and due process, and that she had admonished him only when he refused to stop attacking an absent lawyer.

Issues

• Whether or not Clerk of Court Jaime Luy is administratively liable for the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution.
• Whether or not Sheriff Jadi Hatab, Clerk of Court Erlinda Perez, and Clerk of Court Joey Astorga are liable for the delay in the enforcement of the writ.
• Whether or not Judge Lucia Violago-Isnani is liable for grave abuse of discretion and partiality in the conduct of the hearing.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Administrative Circular Number 12, dated October 12, 1995, defines the territorial reach of a clerk of court's duty to serve process:

All Clerks of Court, who are also ex officio sheriffs, and/or their deputy sheriffs shall serve all court processes and execute all writs of their respective courts within their territorial jurisdiction.

This provision bears on the case because Clerk Luy endorsed the writ to a branch outside the territorial jurisdiction empowered to enforce it, which the Court counted against him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Clerk Luy liable. Execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of law; a judgment left unexecuted is nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party. As an officer of the court, Luy was duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of his officially designated duties, and he fell short of that standard. He gave no reason why, having issued the writ in July 1997, he released it for delivery only in December 1997, and he even sent it to a branch without territorial jurisdiction, endorsing an alias writ to the proper court only in June 1998. The Court found him guilty of simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Civil Service Law punishable for a first infraction by suspension of one month and one day to six months, and imposed the minimum.

On the second issue, the Court dismissed the complaint against the other court personnel. Sheriff Hatab had nothing to do with the writ because he was not its addressee. Clerk Perez validly referred the writ to the office with jurisdiction over the residents against whom it was issued. Clerk Astorga's explanation that the writ had been endorsed to the deputy sheriff was supported by the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, and the short delay was not so extraordinary as to show deliberate delay.

On the third issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion or partiality on the part of Judge Isnani. Her actions showed that she was scrupulous in seeing to it that the requirements of fair play and due process were satisfied. The judge conducting a trial is not a mere moderator but the governor of the trial, and freedom of expression cannot be invoked for purely private matters.

Doctrine

Execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of law; a judgment left unexecuted is an empty victory for the prevailing party. A clerk of court who is also ex officio sheriff is duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in performing officially designated duties, and must serve writs only within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, as Section 1 of Administrative Circular Number 12 requires. Failure to act with dispatch constitutes simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Civil Service Law. A judge is the governor of the trial, and absent evidence, a charge of partiality will not lie.

Disposition

The Court suspended Clerk of Court Jaime Luy for one month and one day, with a warning, and dismissed the complaint against all the other respondents for lack of merit.

Remember This

Memorize the line that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and the life of law, for it anchors every ruling on delay in enforcement. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of clerks of court and sheriffs for neglect of duty and the territorial limits on serving writs.