GREGORIO CUNANAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. HENRY TUAZON, DEPUTY SHERIFF, RTC, BRANCH 57, ANGELES CITY, RAFAEL ROSARIO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, RTC, BRANCH 59, ANGELES CITY, RESPONDENTS.

In a verified complaint^[1] dated
December 8, 1992, Gregorio Cunanan charges Deputy Sheriffs Henry Tuazon and
Rafael Rosario, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 57 and 59,
respectively, for serious misconduct and serious irregularity in the performance
of official duties, in connection with the execution of the decision based on a
compromise agreement rendered in Civil Case 6567 entitled “Gregorio
Cunanan v. Elpidio Lakandula” by the RTC, Branch 57, Angeles City.

Specifically, complainant alleges that Deputy Sheriff Henry
Tuazon of RTC, Angeles City, Branch 57, assisted by Deputy Sheriff Rafael
Rosario of RTC, Angeles City, Branch 59, levied on a real property of defendant
Elpidio Lakandula situated in Cubao, Quezon City pursuant to a writ of execution
issued on January 10, 1992 of the final and executory decision of June 5, 1991;
that despite complainant and counsel’s repeated demands (final demand made on
November 24, 1992), to cause the sheriff’s sale of the levied property after
several assurances from respondents sheriffs that they would issue a notice of
sheriff’s sale, his counsel was informed that respondent Tuazon was about to
cancel the levy made on the property prompting them to make representations
with the Register of Deeds to deny the cancellation of the levy; that from the
documents furnished them, it turned out, however, that the notice of levy on
execution was cancelled by respondent Tuazon on August 18, 1992 under Entry No.
1350 without the knowledge of the plaintiff, herein complainant, and the RTC of
Angeles City, Branch 57 and by virtue of said cancellation, as per Entry No.
2561, the property was sold by defendant Lakandula to Republic Broadcasting
System (RBS) for P10.5 million on August 24, 1992 and title thereto was
consolidated in the latter’s name on August 26, 1992; that upon scrutiny of the
records of Civil Case 6567, complainant’s counsel found out that there was no
sheriff’s return or report on the action taken on the writ of execution; that
eight (8) days after the cancellation of the levy, or on August 26, 1992 (also
the date when the levied property was registered in the name of RBS),
respondent Tuazon issued another notice of levy on execution on the said
property either to mislead the complainant that the levy was filed late and is
already moot and academic, or as a rectification of the action taken on August
18, 1992.

Complainant claims that respondents committed acts, not only
unbecoming a court employee, but also committed fraud and misrepresentation
injurious and prejudicial to him. He
points out that after receiving several millions of pesos from the RBS-GMA 7
out of the negotiated sale, defendant Lakandula has not paid a single centavo
on the judgment debt in Civil Case No. 6567.

Respondents were required to comment on the complaint but the
resolution^[2]
of this Court dated February 3, 1993 mailed to Deputy Sheriff Tuazon was
returned unserved, from information furnished by Lorenzo M. San Andres, Officer
in Charge of the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57 in his letter^[3]
dated March 3, 1993, allegedly because respondent’s wife refused to receive the
same and that respondent himself was on leave.

In his comment,^[4]
respondent Deputy Rafael Rosario denied participation in the non-reporting and
non-return of the writ of execution to the court of origin and averred that he
did not materially benefit from the registration of the notice of levy on
execution, much less the cancellation thereof. He claims that his only participation was to assist Deputy Sheriff
Tuazon in the preparation of the notice of levy on execution, approach the
complainant for registration expenses in connection therewith and relayed
information to complainant and counsel on the fact of registration on February
27, 1992.

In the resolution^[5] of
August 16, 1993, the Court dispensed with the comment of Deputy Sheriff Tuazon
and referred the case to the Executive Judge of Angeles City for investigation,
report and recommendation.

At the hearings conducted by Executive Judge Carlos D. Rustia of
the RTC of Angeles City on October 1, 8 and 15, 1993, complainant, his counsel
and witnesses, and respondent Deputy Sheriff Rosario appeared. Respondent Deputy Sheriff Tuazon, on the
other hand, never appeared at any of the scheduled hearings.

The facts, as found by the investigating judge, are as follows:

Complainant Gregorio Cunanan, plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6567
before the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57, obtained a judgment dated June 5,
1991 in his favor ordering defendant Elpidio Lakandula to pay herein complainant the amount of
P430,000.00 on installment basis. Upon
finality of the decision, a writ of execution was issued directing Deputy
Sheriff Henry Tuazon to enforce the said writ of execution.

Deputy Sheriff Tuazon caused a levy on execution to be annotated
in a real property of Elpidio Lakandula (TCT
No. RT-57150) in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. Despite several requests by complainant to
cause the execution sale of the levied property and assurances that he would do
so, Deputy Sheriff Tuazon never scheduled the auction sale. In a communication dated November 24, 1992,
complainant called the attention of Deputy Sheriffs Henry Tuazon and Rafael
Rosario for their failure to schedule the sale with warning that if they fail
to do so within five (5) days from receipt of his communication, legal steps
would be taken against them.

It turned out, however, that Deputy Sheriff Tuazon, without
notice to complainant nor obtaining authority from the Presiding Judge of RTC,
Branch 57, requested the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel the levy on
execution in TCT No. RT-57150 by virtue of a certificate of full payment
allegedly issued by complainant in favor of Elpidio M. Lakandula.^[6]
On August 18, 1992, the levy on execution was cancelled.

Thereafter, Elpidio M. Lakandula sold TCT No. RT-57150 to the
Republic Broadcasting System, Inc. (RBS) which secured a new title, TCT No.
65620, in its name, thus cancelling TCT No. RT-57150 of Elpidio Lakandula.

The testimonies of Edgardo Panlilio, manager of Prudential Bank,
Angeles City, and Ronilo B. Garcia, deposit bookkeeper of Interbank in Angeles
city, revealed that a check was issued by Elpidio Lakandula in the amount of
P494,000.00 drawn against his account at Interbank in Angeles City, which
Deputy Sheriff Tuazon deposited in his (Tuazon) account with the Prudential
Bank in Angeles City. The said check
was subsequently dishonored.

Aggrieved, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint
against Deputy Sheriffs Henry Tuazon and Rafael Rosario with this Court. He also filed another complaint against both
respondents before the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman for
violation of Section 3(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Article 171, paragraphs (2) and
(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

The investigating judge, on the basis of the evidence presented
found in his Report and Recommendation^[7] dated
December 1, 1993, more than sufficient evidence that Henry Tuazon is guilty of
serious misconduct and serious irregularity in the performance of his official
duties as Deputy Sheriff of Branch 57 of the RTC of Angeles City and
recommended his dismissal from the service with prejudice to re-employment in
any national or local government office or agency and forfeiture of all
retirement benefits that may be due him.

In the case of Deputy Sheriff Rafael Rosario, the investigating
judge found that no convincing evidence was presented by complainant to prove
that Deputy Sheriff Rosario participated and/or conspired in the acts or
omissions of Deputy Sheriff Henry Tuazon which led to the filing of the instant
administrative complaint against them. Quoting the testimony of complainant, to wit: “Rafael Rosario is only the assisting sheriff and I found
out that he has nothing to do with the cancellation of the levy on execution by
Henry Tuazon,” he recommended the exoneration of Deputy Sheriff Rafael
Rosario.

The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the
investigating judge.

In the case of Moya v. Bassig^[8]
which involves an administrative complaint against the Deputy Sheriff of the
then CFI of Pasig, Branch XXI for his failure to sell at public auction
personal properties levied by him under a writ of execution, the Court
dismissed from the service said respondent deputy sheriff with forfeiture of
all retirement benefits, emphatically stating, thus:

“It is undisputable that the most difficult phase of any
proceeding is the execution of judgment. Hence, the officers charged with the delicate task of the enforcement
and/or implementation of the same must, in the absence of a restraining order,
act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of
justice; otherwise, the decisions, orders or other processes of the courts of
justice and the like would be futile. Stated differently, the judgment if not executed would be just an empty
victory on the part of the prevailing party.”

Indeed, as found by the investigating judge, after causing the
annotation of the levy on execution on the property of Elpidio M. Lakandula
covered by TCT No. RT-57150 on February 26, 1992, he never took any step to
conduct the auction sale of said levied property despite several requests by
the complainant and his assurances to do so. The writ was issued to respondent Tuazon on January 10, 1992. Under Section 11 of Rule 39 of the Revised
Rules of Court, respondent Deputy Sheriff Tuazon is duty-bound to make a return
of the writ of execution on the clerk or judge issuing it not less than 10 days
nor more than sixty (60) days after receipt. The duty of the sheriff under Section 11, Rule 39 is mandatory.^[9]

Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

“SEC. 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 anytime 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.”

In the instant case, respondent Deputy Sheriff Tuazon allowed the
60-day lifespan of the writ of execution to lapse without making a return of
the writ to the judge or clerk issuing it when he is required to set forth in
writing at the back thereof the whole of his proceedings by virtue of said
writ. A finding that he was remiss in
the performance of his duty is thus proper under the attendant
circumstances. In Custodio v.
Fulinara,^[10]
the Court dismissed from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch of the government the Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Zambales for failure
to effect the immediate enforcement of the writ of execution referred to him by
the complainant and to make a return of the writ and for collecting the amount
of P500 allegedly for the expenses of publication of the auction sale which he
did not return when the publication did not materialize.

While there may be cases^[11]
decided by this Court where a penalty less severe than dismissal from the
service was imposed for failures to enforce with immediate dispatch the writ of
execution and to make a return of the writ pursuant to Section 11, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court, the peculiar circumstances in the instant case which caused
undue injury to the rights of complainant as a judgment creditor warrant the
more severe penalty of dismissal from the service of respondent Deputy Sheriff
Tuazon. In the case at bench,
respondent Deputy Sheriff Tuazon, without notice to complainant and without
obtaining authority from the Presiding
Judge of RTC, Branch 57 of Angeles City, requested the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City to cancel the annotation of the levy on execution on the levied
property (TCT No. RT-57150). By virtue
of the cancellation of the levy on execution on TCT No. RT-57150 on August 18,
1992, Elpidio Lakandula, judgment debtor in Civil Case No. 6567, was able to
sell on August 24, 1992 the said real property to Republic Broadcasting System,
Inc. to the prejudice of the herein complainant and to the unwarranted benefit
of Elpidio Lakandula. Worse, respondent
Tuazon issued another notice of levy on execution on the said real property on
August 26, 1992 which obviously was intended to mislead complainant that the
notice of levy was filed late or before the date of the negotiated sale of the
levied property.

The misconduct of respondent Tuazon is further compounded by the ample
evidence found by the investigating judge that he was offered monetary
consideration by Elpidio M. Lakandula which he accepted. Exhibits “J”, “K” and
“N” show that a check was issued by Elpidio M. Lakandula in the
amount of P494,000.00 which respondent Tuazon deposited in his personal account
at the Prudential Bank of Angeles City Branch. It must be noted that the judgment debt of Elpidio M. Lakandula is only
P430,000.00. The difference of P64,000
between Lakandula’s judgment debt of P430,000 and the amount of P464,000 in the
Interbank check was intended for the benefit of respondent Tuazon for his acts
and omission which made possible the sale of the real property to RBS.

The attention of this Court has been called to the despicable
practice of some officers charged with the execution of judgment of unjustly
enriching themselves at the expense of the winning litigants who are eager to
have the judgment satisfied and the losing parties who seek to delay the
execution by all means. This is not
only unjust enrichment but a grave disservice to the administration of justice.^[12]

The Court has stressed time and again that the conduct and
behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
justice, from the presiding judge to the sheriff should be circumscribed with
the heavy burden of responsibility. This is especially true of sheriffs. Their conduct at all times, must, not only be characterized with propriety
and decorum, but must also be above
suspicion. For every employee of the
judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.^[13]

As an officer of the court, Deputy Sheriff Tuazon’s obstinate
refusal and continued failure to present his side of the charges against him
despite proper notice, reveal his brazen disregard of the lawful processes and
orders of the court.^[14]
Clearly, the acts of respondent Tuazon “disturb the ethics of public life
and vitiate the integrity of the court personnel as well as the court
itself.”^[15]

As earlier indicated, the Court agrees with the findings and
conclusion of the investigating judge that no convincing evidence was presented
by complainant to establish the fact that Deputy Sheriff Rafael Rosario
participated and/or conspired with the acts or omissions of respondent Tuazon. The records reveal that indeed, he was only
acting as an assisting sheriff
in enforcing the writ of execution.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Deputy Sheriff Henry
Tuazon, RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57 is hereby DISMISSED from the service for serious misconduct and irregularity
in the performance of his official duties, with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations.

The administrative charges against respondent Deputy Sheriff
Rafael Rosario, RTC of Angeles City, Branch 59, are hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-9.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 26.

^[3]
Ibid, pp. 33-35.

^[4]
Ibid, pp. 28-30.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 42.

^[6]
TSN, October 1, 1993, p. 14.

^[7]
Rollo, pp. 177-185.

^[8]
Adm. Matter No. 2796-P, August 7, 1985,
138 SCRA 49.

^[9]
Sibulo v. Ramirez, Adm. Matter
No. R-494-P, September 17, 1987, 154 SCRA 101.

^[10]
Adm. Matter No. P-1669, December 27,
1979, 94 SCRA 808.

^[11]
Tolentino v. Borja, Adm. Matter No. R-146-P, March 14, 1986, 141 SCRA
525; Barola v. Abogatal, Adm. Matter No. P-1974, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA
582.

^[12]
Lacuata v. Bautista, A.M. No.
P-94-1005, August 12, 1994.

^[13]
Ferrer v. Gapasin, Jr., A.M. No. P-92-736, November 16, 1993, Llanes v.
Borja, A.M. No. P-86-32, December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 288.

^[14]
Records of the Supreme Court Administrative Services, Leave Section, show that
Deputy Sheriff Henry Tuazon was on Absence Without Leave (AWOL) effective
February 1, 1993. On May 24, 1993, his
salaries were ordered withheld.

^[15]
Ganaden v. Bolasco, Adm. Matter
No. P-124, May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 50.