DR. SY TIAN TIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROLANDO MACAPUGAY, DEPUTY SHERIFF OF THE COURT OF FIST INSTANCE OF MALOLOS, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the
conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the
judge to the least and lowest of its personnel – hence, it becomes the
imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good
name and standing as a true temple of justice.^[1]
Thus, to upkeep public faith and confidence in the administration of justice, We find essential to emphasize
the relevance of the aforesaid pronouncement in this administrative complaint
of inexcusable negligence against Deputy Sheriff Rolando Macapugay
of the Court of First Instance of Malolos, Bulacan.

 In W.C. Case No. BLO-58, Ildefonso A. Agres (deceased),
substituted by his surviving widow, etc., et al. vs. National Soy Factory, the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission ruled in favor of claimant Ildefonso Agres represented by
his widow Maria A. Vda. de Agres
and ordered the National Soy
Factory to pay claimant the total sum of P6,661.00.

The records disclose that, in satisfaction of the said award, the
National Soy Factory immediately caused to be issued Manager’s check No. 24991
of the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Grace Park Branch) dated October 11, 1973 in the amount of
P6,661.00, payable to the order of Maria A. Vda. de Agres.^[2]
In acknowledgment, Mrs. Agres signed the voucher
prepared by the National Soy Factory^[3]
and the same was witnessed by Deputy Sheriff Rolando Macapugay.^[4]

Complainant as the Manager of National Soy Factory, claims that
although more than two (2) years have already elapsed from October 11, 1973, Deputy Sheriff Macapugay continuously failed to make the proper sheriff’s
return to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.  So the latter issued an Alias Writ of
Execution dated December 17, 1975 directing the Office of the Sheriff of Quezon City to serve said alias writ upon the National Soy
Factory; that complainants were surprised to receive such writ of execution
considering that they have already completely paid the claim recited in said
alias writ; that when the sheriff of Quezon City
levied on their valuable personal property, they suffered sleepless nights,
wounded feelings, mental anguish, tortured moments and bismerched
reputation because it appears that they refused to pay a legal obligation.  But the truth was that they have already
completely and fully paid said claim, although they could not immediately find
a copy of the aforementioned proof of payment. 
It took the Charter Insurance (their insurer) one month to locate the
documents of payments because of floods that occurred.

When required to comment, the respondent admitted inter alia, that he failed to make
the return to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission at Quezon City “for the reason
that the same was inadvertently placed among the court processes
folder-envelopes already returned to different courts in the Philippines.”^[5]

With respondent’s admission of the material allegations as set
forth in the complaint, We find him negligent in failing to make a return of
the writ, in violation of Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:

“Section 11.  Return of
writ of execution. – The writ of execution may be made returnable to the clerk
or judge of the court issuing it, at any time not less than ten (10) nor more
than sixty (60)days after its receipt by the officer who must set forth in
writing on its back the whole of
his proceedings by virtue thereof, and file it with the clerk or judge to be
preserved with the other papers in the case. 
A certified copy of the record, in the execution book kept by the clerk,
of an execution by virtue of
which real property has been sold, or of the officer’s return thereon, shall be
evidence of the contents of the originals whenever they, or any part thereof,
have been lost or destroyed.”

His
actuation of unwarranted delay did not only cause wounded personal feelings
and humiliation to complainant but also “more importantly impairs public
faith and confidence in the administration of justice by our courts,”^[6]
warranting an administrative sanction.

WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby found guilty of the
charge of inexcusable negligence in the performance of his duties and is
ordered suspended from office for a period of two (2) months without pay
effective upon notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Recto vs. Racelis, Adm. Matter No. P-182, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 438.

^[2]
Annex 2, p. 5, Rollo.

^[3]
Annex 3-A, p. 5, Rollo.

^[4]
Annex 3-B, p. 5, Rollo.

^[5]
Rollo., p. 8, Comment, paragraph 4.

^[6]
Andres Aquino vs. Melencio
N. Aficial, Adm. Matter No. P-1065, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 222.