SERAFIN A. AÑONUEVO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOSE NOEL R. RUBIO, AND SHERIFF III DANILO C. ADILLE, MTCC-BR. 3, LEGAZPI CITY, RESPONDENT.

Añonuevo versus Rubio and Adille

The Case

This is an administrative case for misconduct in office. Serafin Añonuevo, chairman of a tricycle transport cooperative, filed a letter-complaint against Judge Jose Noel Rubio and Sheriff Danilo Adille of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Legazpi City, Branch 3. He charged the judge with rendering an unjust judgment in two small collection cases, and the sheriff with inefficiency and dereliction of duty in carrying out the writs of execution issued in those same cases. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by court personnel, and especially by sheriffs, at the execution stage of litigation. It teaches that a judgment is worth little until it is executed, and that the sheriff's role in execution is ministerial and must be discharged promptly and with periodic reporting.

Procedural History

The matter began as a letter-complaint dated December 17, 2001, addressed to the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator reviewed it and submitted its recommendation. On January 21, 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Rubio for lack of merit, following the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. As to Sheriff Adille, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that he be held liable for neglect of duty and suspended for one month, with a stern warning. The Court agreed with that recommendation but, as will be seen, adjusted the penalty. The case therefore reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative action, and the Court resolved it in its decision of July 30, 2004.

Facts

In 1997, the cooperative filed two cases for collection of sums of money before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Legazpi City, against Florentino Revoltar and Alexander Daet. The cooperative sought to recover five thousand pesos from each defendant, money borrowed in 1995 and never paid. On February 29, 2000, Judge Rubio decided both cases in favor of the cooperative. But instead of ordering the five percent monthly interest stipulated in the statements of account, the judge ordered the defendants to pay twelve percent interest per annum from the date of judicial demand.

Writs of execution were issued on August 4, 2000. For months nothing happened. Only in December 2000, after much prodding from the complainant and the cooperative, did the sheriff serve the writs. On December 15, 2000, partial payments of three thousand five hundred pesos and two thousand five hundred pesos were received from Revoltar and Daet. In April 2001, Revoltar paid an additional two thousand pesos. Daet made no further payment until the complaint was filed.

The complainant then charged the judge with rendering an unjust judgment and the sheriff with inefficiency and dereliction of duty. The judge explained that he decided on the evidence, and that he refused the five percent monthly interest because the statement of account was dubious, its blank portions having been filled in different handwritings. He added that the remedy for an erroneous decision is appeal. The sheriff claimed he had served the writs, and pleaded for compassion because Daet was only a boundary tricycle driver living in a rented dilapidated house who promised to pay the balance.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Rubio is administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment in the two collection cases.
• Whether or not Sheriff Adille is administratively liable for inefficiency and dereliction of duty for the delay in implementing the writs of execution.
• Whether or not the sheriff complied with his duty to submit periodic reports on the execution.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides:

SECTION 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.

This is the general standard of diligence that governs every court employee, including the sheriff in this case.

Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

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.

This is the specific rule the sheriff violated, because he neither reported within thirty days nor made periodic reports every thirty days thereafter.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Rubio for lack of merit. The judge had decided on the evidence, and an error in judgment, if any, is corrected by appeal, not by an administrative charge.

On the second issue, the Court held Sheriff Adille liable. The Court reminded court personnel to perform their assigned tasks promptly and with great care and diligence, and stressed that execution is the final stage of litigation, so that judgments left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed are rendered inutile and the parties prejudiced, to the condemnation of the entire judicial system. The sheriff delayed implementation for more than three months and acted only when prodded by the complainant and the cooperative.

On the third issue, the Court found that the sheriff failed to comply with Section 14 of Rule 39. He should have reported to the court within thirty days from receipt of the writs the reasons why the judgment obligations were unsatisfied, and should have reported every thirty days thereafter. No such reports appeared. His claim that he had served the writs and obtained partial satisfaction could not erase his earlier procrastination. The Court defined simple neglect of duty as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference, a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, carrying suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second. Being his first offense, suspension of one month and one day was warranted.

Doctrine

Court personnel must at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence, as Section 1 of Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel commands. The sheriff's role in the execution of a judgment is purely ministerial, bereft of any discretion to determine whether to execute a judgment or not. Execution ought to be carried out speedily and efficiently, because judgments left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed are rendered inutile and prejudice the parties. Under Section 14 of Rule 39, the sheriff must report to the court within thirty days after receipt of the writ if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full, stating the reason, and must make a report every thirty days until the judgment is satisfied in full or the writ's effectivity expires. Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Rubio for lack of merit, found Sheriff Adille guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended him for one month and one day without pay, with a warning, and directed the presiding judge to order the immediate and full implementation and satisfaction of the writs of execution.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the sheriff's duty to execute is purely ministerial, and that judgments left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed are rendered inutile. Examiners use this case to test the diligence required of sheriffs under Section 14 of Rule 39, the distinction between an erroneous judgment corrected by appeal and an administrative offense, and the definition and penalty for simple neglect of duty.