AMELIA L. AVELLANOSA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSE Z. CAMASO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

Avellanosa versus Camaso

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Amelia Lomuntad Avellanosa against Jose Z. Camaso, Sheriff Four of the Regional Trial Court, Branch Twenty Four, Cebu City. The complainant, a plaintiff in a pending civil case, charges the respondent sheriff with failing to conduct an auction sale pursuant to a court order, and with conduct that betrayed a corrupt intent. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for sheriffs and court personnel: a sheriff must discharge his duties without undue delay, with care and attention, and must never accept, much less ask for, gratuities from the parties he is bound to serve.

Procedural History

The case began as an affidavit-complaint dated the sixteenth of October, year two thousand, filed directly with the Supreme Court and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation. The Office of the Court Administrator synthesized the complainant's allegations and directed the respondent to file his comment, which he did, assailing the charges against him. After evaluating the records, the Office of the Court Administrator rendered its report, giving no credence to the respondent's protestation of innocence. It recommended that the respondent sheriff be fined one thousand pesos for his failure to immediately implement the order of the trial court dated the fourth of August, year two thousand, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely. The Supreme Court then resolved the administrative matter in its decision.

Facts

Amelia Lomuntad Avellanosa was the plaintiff in a civil case originally assigned to Judge Martin Ocampo of Branch Seven, Cebu City. After Judge Ocampo's death, the case was re-raffled to Branch Twenty Four, presided over by Judge Olegario Sarmiento, Junior. On the fourth of August, year two thousand, Judge Sarmiento issued an order directing the respondent sheriff to put a conjugal lot on auction sale in connection with that civil case.

On or about the eighth or ninth of August, the complainant went to Branch Twenty Four to secure a copy of the order and to follow up its implementation with the sheriff, as she was in dire need of money for her medications. When she approached him, the sheriff rudely asked for a copy of the description of the subject lot. She said she had not brought one but that a copy could be taken from the court's records. He vehemently refused and insisted there was no such copy in his files. He then changed the subject and told her he had been directed by Judge Sarmiento to make an accounting of the proceeds of the sale, and he began to make an abstract of what he was going to spend, such as fare, snacks, and, of course, his own meals. When she begged him to implement the order, he replied, in effect, that she had no money and asked how he could move the matter. He kept pacing the floor with the complainant keeping pace despite her difficulty in walking. He sat down only after she told him that all the money she had at that time was twenty pesos but that she would find a way to meet his demands if only he would tell her how much she would give him. To this he replied that she had one hundred forty thousand pesos, referring to the proceeds of the first auction sale. When she asked again how much he really wanted, he answered that he would not quote and would not quote, and then left her.

Attempts were made on several occasions to see the sheriff, but to no avail. The staff of Branch Twenty Four told her that he leaves the office very early, at around seven thirty in the morning, and does not come back for the rest of the day, and that he has no telephone. She went to the Palace of Justice on two separate days before seven thirty in the morning and found the courtroom doors still locked at that hour. She informed her lawyer, who told her that he, too, had attempted to see the sheriff but was given the same answers. As a result, she filed a motion for the appointment of a special sheriff, which was granted. She then filed her grievance with the Office of the Ombudsman, where a confrontation was held. During that confrontation, the sheriff denied her allegations and made up his own story, and at one point she caught him making faces, sticking his tongue out a little and smiling sarcastically. He apologized, but the apology was without sincerity as his sarcastic smile went on.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is guilty of misconduct for failing to promptly implement the order of the trial court dated the fourth of August, year two thousand.
• Whether or not the respondent sheriff's conduct, including his remarks about money and his inaccessibility, fell short of the standard of conduct required of a court official.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision but applies the settled standard of conduct for sheriffs and court personnel. The Court states the governing rule as follows:

A sheriff is bound to discharge his duties without undue delay, as well as with care and attention, which any prudent man would do in the management of his affairs.

This rule bears directly on the charge that the respondent failed to implement the trial court's order promptly.

The Court further states the rule on gratuities:

Neither should he accept, let alone asked for, gratuities from parties he is bound to serve in the discharge of his office.

This rule bears on the complainant's account of the sheriff's remarks about money and his abstract of expenses.

Finally, the Court states the standard of integrity required of those in the administration of justice:

Any person involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service.

This rule governs the evaluation of the respondent's entire conduct in the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's failure to duly implement the order of the trial court was sufficiently shown. The complainant had yet to file a motion for the appointment of a special sheriff, which she did only because the respondent would not act. Despite his disavowal of improper conduct or wrongdoing, he saw the need to apologize to the complainant during their confrontation before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court also observed that the complainant would hardly go through all the trouble of filing the complaint if her intention were only to annoy the respondent.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent had fallen short of the requisite circumspection. A sheriff is bound to discharge his duties without undue delay, with care and attention, and there is no room for any lackadaisical attitude that betrays efficiency and competence. He should not accept, let alone ask for, gratuities from the parties he is bound to serve. Even when no outright demand for money is made, any conduct unbecoming a court official can easily be perceived as revealing a corrupt intent or as taking undue advantage of a party's predicament. Sheriffs, in particular, must show a high regard for professionalism given the delicate tasks reposed in them. The Court accepted the report of the Office of the Court Administrator and agreed with its recommendation.

Doctrine

A sheriff is bound to discharge his duties without undue delay, with care and attention, and with no room for any lackadaisical attitude that betrays efficiency and competence. He must never accept, let alone ask for, gratuities from the parties he is bound to serve. Even without an outright demand for money, any conduct unbecoming a court official can easily be perceived as revealing a corrupt intent or as taking undue advantage of a party's predicament. Every person involved in the administration of justice must live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service, and sheriffs especially must show a high regard for professionalism in the performance of their delicate tasks.

Disposition

The Court held the respondent sheriff guilty of misconduct for failing to promptly implement the order of the trial court, and ordered him to pay a fine of one thousand pesos, with a warning that another infraction would warrant a severe penalty.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a sheriff must discharge his duties without undue delay and must never accept, let alone ask for, gratuities from the parties he serves. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of court personnel for delay and for conduct that reveals a corrupt intent, even absent an outright demand for money.