A.M. No. P-95-1158. July 14, 1997
EUFEMIA BERCASIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HERBERTO BENITO, SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NAGA CITY, RESPONDENT.
FRANCISCO, J.:
attorney-in-fact, Pastor Bravo, filed a complaint before the Office of
Executive Judge David C. Naval of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naga City
against Herberto Benito, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 27, Naga City, for
irregularities in connection with his failure to implement the Second
Alias Writ of Demolition issued in Civil Case No. 34, Branch 22 of the
RTC, Naga City.
Judge Naval conducted an investigation on the
matter. The relevant facts as culled from his report and which are
substantially undisputed are as follows:
“On
October 6, 1992 there was issued in Civil Case No. 34 a 2nd alias writ
of demolition. Complainant Bravo, as Attorney-in-fact of the prevailing
party Eufemia Bercasio, paid Respondent Benito a total amount of
P8,000.00 on the dates hereunder indicated:October 4,
1992 —- P2,000.00December 4, 1992 —-
P1,000.00December 29, 1992 —- P1,000.00
January
25, 1993 —- P4,000.00________
TOTAL
—- P8,000.00for the expenses of the latter in the enforcement
of the said writ of demolition. The writ of demolition was, however,
quashed by the Order dated July 2, 1993 (Exh. 3-F, pages 201-206),
without Respondent Benito having implemented the writ of demolition.
Subsequently, Complainant Bravo demanded that Responded Benito account
for the P8,000.00 he received and return the unspent amount, but the
latter failed to comply with the demand. Thereafter, Complainant Bravo
reported the matter to Atty. Rosario B. Torrecampo, RTC Clerk of Court
IV and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff who, by a letter dated June 17,
1993, directed Respondent Benito to account for the P8,000.00 and
deposit the balance thereof, if any. Complying with the directive,
Respondent Benito submitted a written accounting (Exh. 3-E, page
199-200) showing that he spent P7,880.00, and deposited the amount of
P120.00 with the Office of the Clerk of Court under O.R. No. 2504858
(page 197). Not satisfied with the accounting made by Respondent Benito
Atty. Rosario B. Torrecampo filed in Civil Case No. 34 a “Report With
Prayer to Direct Deputy Sheriff Herbert Benito To Justify Expenses”
(pages 33-34), copy of which was furnished the undersigned, as Executive
Judge (page 37). In a letter dated July 17, 1993 (page 40), Counsel for
Complainant Bravo requested the undersigned to order Respondent Sheriff
Benito to justify his expenses. On July 20, 1993 undersigned issued a
Memorandum Order…x x
x x
x
x
x x x“Respondent Benito complied with the xxx Memorandum Order,
by way of a letter dated July 26, 1993 (page 30) where he alleged that
he could no longer carry out the writ of demolition because it was
already quashed on July 2, 1993, and that he had already submitted his
report of his expenditure to the Provincial Sheriff.“Not
satisfied with the explanation of Respondent Benito, Complainant Bravo
filed the present Letter-Complaint (page 191-193). Respondent Benito
filed his Answer to the Letter-Complaint by way of a verified letter
dated November 18, 1993 (pages 212-213) where he reiterated his claim
that he spent P7,880.00, and he named the witnesses who would
corroborate his claim.“Parties were allowed to adduce their
respective evidence. Complainant Bravo adduced in evidence his verified
complaint and its annexes. Respondent Benito admitted having received
the P8,000.00 and having failed to implement the writ of demolition, and
adduced oral and documentary evidence to support his expenses of
P7880.00, as itemized in his report to the Provincial Sheriff (Exh. 3-E,
page 199-200), to wit:November 8, 1992 –
Hiring of
jeepney P1,000.00Per diems of securities
300.00Meals 200.00
Total
P1,500.00November 14, 1992 –
Hiring of
Jeepney P1,000.00Per diems of
securities 300.00Meals
150.00Total P1,450.00
December
4, 1992 –Hiring of Motorcycles P200.00
Meals
150.00Total P350.00
February
1, 1993 –Hiring of jeepney P1,000.00
Wages
of laborers 1,050.00Meals
350.00P2,400.00
February 9, 1993 –
Hiring of
Jeepney P1,000.00Meals
80.00Total P1,080.00
March
3, 1993 –Hiring of Jeepney P1,000.00
Meals
100.00Total P1,100.00
Grand
Total P7,880.00“Above itemized
expenses were substantiated by the affidavits of Respondent Benito
himself (Exh. 3, pages 235-236); of Rodolfo Valenciano (Exh.1, page
223); of Gonzalo Brioso (Exh. 2, page 228); of Rodolfo Segovia (Exh. 4,
page 234); and Jaime Imperial (Exh.5, p.227). Said affidavits of the
witnesses were adopted as their respective direct testimonies, and were
made the bases of their cross-examination. Above-named witnesses
identified the “Reimbursement Expense Receipts” (Exhs. 1-B to 1-D, pages
220-222, Exhs 3-M to 3-Q, pages 229-233; and Exh. 3-R, page 226). These
“Reimbursement Expense Receipts” were adduced in evidence to prove that
Respondent Benito hired the Jeepney driven by Rodolfo Segovia for five
(5) rounds trips from Naga City to Tinambac, Camarines Sur and back for
P1,000.00 per trip; and the motorcycle of Jaime Imperial for one round
trip from Naga City to Tinambac, Camarines Sur, and back for P200.00;
and that he(Respondent Benito) paid Rodolfo Valenciano for the services
of “securities” and laborers in the total amount of P1,030.00 is not
supported by receipts.”[1]
Based
on the facts presented, Judge Naval found no evidence to prove that the
money given was spent on matters other than the execution of the writ.
However,
he recommended respondent sheriff to be held administratively liable.
The
dispositive portion reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, it is hereby respectfully recommended that Respondent
Sheriff IV Herberto Benito be held administrativeli liable for violation
of Rule 141, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court by imposing upon him the
penalty of SUSPENSION without pay for a period of fifteen (15) days,
with a warining that similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.”[2]
The
“Report-Recommendation” of Judge Naval was referred to the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluaiton. In its Evaluation and
Recommendation dated August 7, 1995, the OCA agreed with the observation
of the investigating judge that although the amount spent by respondent
sheriff was unreasonably extravagant, such amount was duly accounted
for and was even uncontroverted. Thus, it opined that sheriff cannot be
compelled to return the amount of P8,000.00. However, the OCA
recommended that respondent sheriff be held administratively liable for
irregularities in the performance of his duties which consist of
violation of Section 9 (instead of Section 7 as referred to in the
Report-Recommendation of the investigating Judge) Rule 141 (as amended)
of the Rules of Court pertaining to sheriffs and other persons serving
processes, and violation of Section 113 of Article III, Chapter V of the
National Accounting and Auditing Manual for failure to issue official
receipts for money collected. For these infractions, the OCA recommended
suspension for one (1) month without pay.[3]
We agree with both findings of Judge Naval and
the OCA, but we find their respective recommended suspensions of 15 days
and 30 days respectively without pay too light a penalty for the
violations he has committed.
The revised second paragraph of
Section 9 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court[4] provides:
“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, guards’ 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 shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned
with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs
against the judgement debtor.” (7a)
The rule
requires the sheriff executing the writs or processes to estimate the
expenses to be incurred and upon the approval of the estimated expenses
the interested party has to deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court
and Ex-officio Sheriff. These expenses shall then be disbursed to the
executing Sheriff subject to his liquidation within the same period for
rendering a return on the process or writ. Any unspent amount shall be
refunded to the party who made the deposit. In this case, respondent
sheriff failed to deposit with the court the amount received from
complainant.
It appears to this Court that respondent sheriff
acted irregularly when he submitted his undated Sheriff’s Partial Report[5] and Sheriff’s Return[6] without liquidating the amounts
previously received. In fact, he only submitted an accounting of his
expenses when it was already formally requested. Persons involved in the
administration of justice, like the herein respondent sheriff, ought to
live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the
public service and must at all times be circumspect to preserve the
integrity and dignity of our courts of justice.
In Ong v.
Meregildo[7] it is worthy to
note:
“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 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.”
With
respect to respondent’s violation of Section 113 of Article III Chapter V
the National Accounting and Auditing Manual we find the same to be well
founded. Evidence on record shows that respondent received the total of
P8,000.00 from the complainant but he merely issued receipts which were
handwritten on scraps of paper,[8]
in clear violation of Section 113 Article III, Chapter V of the
National Accounting and Auditing Manual which provides “that no payment
of any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without
immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgement thereof”.
However,
anent the failure of respondent sheriff to implement the second was
writ of demolition, We find no liability. His failure to implement the
writ was brought about by circumstances beyond his control. Evidence
shows that upon agreement of the parties, the enforcement of the writ
was held in abeyance since there was an attempt to settle the case. When
respondent sheriff together with the hired laborers went to Tinambac
Camarines Sur to enforce the writ, the municipal mayor stopped them due
to an encounter between the NPA’s and the military which then resulted
in “mopping operations” by the military in Barangay San Jose.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Deputy Sheriff IV Herberto Benito is hereby SUSPENDED for a
period of three (3) months without pay a stern warning that any further
infraction of the Rules of Court shall be dealt with severely.
SO
ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and
Panganiban, JJ., concur.
[1]
Report-Recommendation, pp. 1-3; Rollo, pp. 4-6.
[2] Ibid., p. 5; Rollo, p. 8.
[3] OCA Report, pp. 1-5.
[4] Effective November 2, 1990.
[5] Rollo, p. 316.
[6] Rollo, p. 317.
[7] 233 SCRA 632, 644.
[8] Annex “A”, Records, p. 228.