RENATO M. DAGUMAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. MELVIN T. BAGABALDO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNTINLUPA CITY, RESPONDENT.

Daguman versus Bagabaldo

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Supreme Court against a sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City. Renato Daguman, who acted as special assistant to the spouses whose property was being foreclosed, accused Sheriff Melvin Bagabaldo of dereliction of duty in the conduct of a scheduled public auction sale. The case matters to a reviewee because it fixes the standard of diligence demanded of sheriffs as officers of the court, and it shows how the Court classifies and penalizes a sheriff's failure to attend to a scheduled auction.

Procedural History

The complaint began as an affidavit-complaint sworn in September 2002 and was docketed as an administrative matter. The complainant later moved to withdraw the complaint, but the Supreme Court denied the withdrawal and referred the matter to Executive Judge Juanita Tomas Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Executive Judge conducted hearings and submitted a Final Report recommending that the respondent be suspended from the service without pay for two months for simple neglect of duty. The case then came before the Supreme Court as an original administrative action, and the Court rendered its decision in March 2004.

Facts

The spouses Oscar Martin and Mercedes Yvette Lopez owned a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title, and that property was the subject of a foreclosure proceeding. A public auction sale was scheduled for ten o'clock in the morning of August 28, 2002, at the Muntinlupa City Hall Quadrangle. Renato Daguman, who described himself as the special assistant of the spouses and as authorized to represent them, went to the Office of the Clerk of Court that morning. The respondent sheriff arrived at about eleven forty in the morning, advised the complainant to take lunch first, and assured him that the auction would be conducted after the lunch break, upon the arrival of the mortgagee's representative.

The complainant returned at five minutes past one in the afternoon and was told that the auction had already been conducted at twenty minutes past noon. The respondent showed him minutes of the auction indicating that the property had been sold to DBS Bank of the Philippines. The complainant insisted that no public auction took place, because he had stayed at the ground floor lobby facing the quadrangle from ten in the morning until five minutes past one, and the respondent never left his office during that time. The minutes certified by the respondent, however, stated that the sale was held at ten in the morning in front of the City Hall and closed at twenty minutes past noon.

In his comment, the respondent claimed that before reporting to the office he had posted other notices of auction sales, that unexpected traffic in Alabang delayed him, and that he had the sale conducted at noon. He said the bank's representative returned a minute after the complainant left for lunch, and that he and the representative looked for the complainant at the hallway and the canteen before proceeding to the quadrangle. The complainant later moved to withdraw his complaint, saying it had been made upon the directive of Dionisio Llamas, Junior, who sought leverage against an opposing bank, and that he personally found nothing irregular in the sheriff's conduct. The registered owners, through Angelo Base, opposed the withdrawal and pressed the complaint, adding allegations of threatening remarks and of falsification of the minutes. The Executive Judge found the threatening remarks and the falsification charge unsubstantiated, but found the respondent liable for simple neglect of duty.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to conduct the scheduled auction sale at the appointed time and for proceeding with it despite the known presence of the mortgagors' representative.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for the alleged threatening remarks against Angelo Base and for the alleged falsification of the minutes of the auction sale.
• Whether or not the proper penalty is suspension without pay for two months, considering that this is the respondent's first offense.

Applicable Provisions

Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 19 classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense, and the Court quotes its penalty in this wise:

Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months, for the first offense.

This provision supplies the range of the penalty and bears directly on the sanction imposed on the respondent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court defined the offense as the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and as a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. The respondent should have known that it was incumbent upon him to conduct the auction sale as scheduled at ten o'clock in the morning. He should have exerted diligent efforts to look for the complainant before conducting the sale, or at the very least noted those efforts and the complainant's absence in the minutes. The Court agreed with the Executive Judge that his duty to attend timely to the scheduled auction took precedence over his duty of posting notices for another auction set on a much later date. The Court also found the undue haste with which he conducted the sale at twenty minutes past noon, after himself advising the complainant to take lunch, to be proof of his failure to give due attention to his task. He should likewise have noted the complainant's presence, or his non-appearance later, in the minutes, if only to show transparency.

On the second issue, the Court held that the allegation of threatening remarks is not substantiated by the evidence on record and is baseless and unreasonable. The charge of falsification of public documents is likewise unsubstantiated, there being no showing that the false entry in the minutes was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.

On the third issue, the Court held that the offense is simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Civil Service Commission circular, punishable for a first offense by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months. Considering that this is the respondent's first offense, the Court imposed suspension for two months without pay.

Doctrine

A sheriff is an officer of the court and an agent of the law, and high standards are expected of him. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him, and it signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. A sheriff who fails to conduct a scheduled auction sale at the appointed time, who proceeds with the sale despite the known presence of the mortgagors' representative, and who fails to note in the minutes the presence or absence of that representative, is guilty of simple neglect of duty. Under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 19, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable, for the first offense, by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months. Falsification of a public document requires a showing that the false entry was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Melvin Bagabaldo guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended him for two months without pay, with a stern warning that any repetition will be dealt with more severely, and ordered that a copy of the decision be entered in his personal record.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that simple neglect of duty is the failure to give attention to a task expected of an employee, arising from carelessness or indifference, and that a sheriff who conducts a scheduled auction with undue haste and without noting the mortgagors' representative in the minutes is guilty of it. Examiners use this case to test the classification and penalty for simple neglect of duty under the Civil Service Commission circular, and the standard of professionalism required of sheriffs as officers of the court.