FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-13-3105 (Formerly A.M. No. 10-7-83-MTCC), September 11, 2013
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. DESIDERIO W. MACUSI, JR., SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, TABUK CITY, KALINGA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
In a Resolution dated August 18, 2010,13 the Court treated the instant matter as an administrative complaint against Macusi and referred the same to Executive Judge Marcelino K. Wacas (Wacas), RTC-Branch 25, Tabuk City, Kalinga, for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Court also directed Atty. Andomang to facilitate, in coordination with all concerned, the immediate implementation of the writs of execution listed in Judge Dalanao’s inventory and submit a status report thereon within 30 days from notice.
- That I was appointed Court Interpreter on May 24, 2004 and was designated Sheriff in April 2005;
- That the Writs of Execution issued in the year 1997-2004 were not properly turned over to the undersigned; hence, I could not make any follow-ups and updated reports;
- That the Writs of Execution without initial or updated reports could not be blamed on the undersigned because as early as August 2006 [please see attached reports marked as annex A], I already informed the Honorable Court of the stand of the plaintiff, Rural Bank of Tabuk [K-A], Inc. regarding the Writs of Execution issued in its favor – THAT THE WRITS OF EXECUTION WILL ONLY BE DELIVERED AND EXPLAINED TO THE LOSING PARTY LITIGANTS – thus; what report could be made in such a scenario. Please see also attached reports marked as Annex A-1 on the stand of the plaintiff of scheduling the service of the Writs of Execution, this was reported to the Hon. Court in August 2008. Kindly compare this with the report where plaintiffs through their counsels who always coordinate with the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC BR 25 where I am serving as the Sheriff resulted to either partial or full satisfaction of the amount of execution [said report is marked as Annex A-2];
- That Plantiff Rural Bank of Tabuk [K-A] Inc. does not like to make the necessary deposit for the Sheriff’s expenses in IMPLEMENTING OR EXECUTING the Writs of Execution because the company [Rural Bank] had been and is spending thousands of pesos for litigation expenses [please see attached report marked as Annex B]. Thus; no estimated expenses could be shown, though I AM ACCOMPLISHING THE FORM FOR ESTIMATED EXPENSES WHENEVER I SERVED COURT PROCESSES and said form is attached and marked as Annex C;
- That I am attaching OCA Circular No. [44-2007] marked as Annex D to show why Cooperatives does (sic) not need to make the necessary deposits for Sheriff’s expenses; hence, no estimated expenses to be accomplished and shown;
- That I have done everything I could to comply with the Rules of Court on Execution and satisfaction of Judgment; hence, I should not be liable for a disciplinary action because “…the rule also states that when party litigants, in whose favor the Writs, have been issued, frustrate the efforts of the Sheriffs to implement those Writs, the latter are relieved from such duty and incur no administrative liability therefore.”
[T]he attention of this Court was partly focused on the length of service of Mr. Macusi as Deputy Sheriff and that is for the period of more than 3 years and by reason of the same, this Court could say that he wrongly interpreted some basic rules in the implementation of writs of execution and the disbursement of expenses relative thereto. Another point to consider, is the principle of first offense which has the effect of mitigating the administrative liability.15In the end, Judge Wacas recommended that Macusi be found guilty of simple neglect of duty and meted the penalty of a fine in the amount of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00).
In a Resolution dated February 6, 2013,18 the Court re-docketed the administrative complaint against Macusi as a regular administrative matter and required Macusi to manifest within 10 days from notice if he was willing to submit the matter for decision/resolution based on the records/pleadings filed.
- [T]he instant administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative case;
- Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, Branch 25, RTC, Tabuk, Kalinga, be found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and a penalty of FINE in the amount of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) be imposed upon him, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.17
The raison d’ etre behind the requirement of periodic reports under Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court is to update the court on the status of the execution and to take necessary steps to ensure the speedy execution of decisions.20 Macusi did not deny that he failed to file periodic reports on the Writ of Execution dated September 10, 2008 in Civil Case No. 429-06, as well as on the writs of execution in the other cases in Judge Dalanao’s inventory. In his defense, however, he asserted that the prevailing party in the cases, including Paligan, failed to coordinate or refused to cooperate with him in the implementation of their respective writs of execution; and that the writs of execution were not properly turned over to him when he was appointed Sheriff in April 2005. Macusi’s excuses cannot exonerate him.RULE 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
x x x x
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 (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or the 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. (Emphasis ours.)RULE 141
LEGAL FEES
x x x x
Section 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons serving processes. –
x x x x
With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of trave, guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rending a return on the process. The liquidation shall be approved by the court. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.chanrob1esvirtualawlibrary
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them. They are duty- bound to know and to comply with the very basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of execution.As observed by Judge Wacas, Macusi exercised excessive discretion in the execution of the writs and in the filing of reports thereon. He seemed to have entirely overlooked that the nature of a sheriff’s duty in the execution of a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. As such, a sheriff has the duty to perform faithfully and accurately what is incumbent upon him. Conversely, he exercises no discretion as to the manner of executing a final judgment. Any method of execution falling short of the requirement of the law deserves reproach and should not be countenanced.22cralawlibrary
It is undisputed that the most difficult phase of any proceeding is the execution of judgment. The officer charged with this delicate task is the sheriff. The sheriff, as an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his behavior. Execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law. He is to execute the directives of the court therein strictly in accordance with the letter thereof and without any deviation therefrom. (Citations omitted.)
Cessation from office of respondent by resignation or retirement neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic. The jurisdiction that was this Court’s at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. Respondent’s resignation does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable. (Citations omitted.)Considering the grave responsibilities imposed on him, Macusi had been careless and imprudent in discharging his duties. Neither neglect nor delay should be allowed to stall the expeditious disposition of cases. As such, he is indeed guilty of simple neglect of duty, which is the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task. Simple neglect of duty signifies “disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.”29cralawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 50.cranad
2 Paligan 's letter was actually erroneously addressed to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).cranad
3Rollo, p. 46.cranad
4 Id. at 48.cranad
5 Atty. Andomang did not name the Deputy Sheriff she was referring to but who turned out to be Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC-Branch 25, Tabuk, Kalinga.cranad
6Rollo, pp. 17-30.cranad
7 Again, Judge Dalanao did not specifically name Macusi in his letter dated November 6, 2009.cranad
8Rollo, pp. 36-38.cranad
9 Id. at 36-37.cranad
10 Id. at 37.cranad
11 Id. at 31-32.cranad
12 Id. at 6-8.cranad
13 Id. at 51-52.cranad
14 Id. at 64-73.cranad
15 Id. at 72.cranad
16 Id. at 76-79.cranad
17 Id. at 79.cranad
18 Id. at 80.cranad
19 Id. at 82-84.cranad
20Mangubat v. Camino, 518 Phil. 333, 342 (2006).cranad
21 A.M. No. P-07-2304, February 12, 2009, 578 SCRA 502, 510-511.cranad
22Spouses Biglete v. Maputi, Jr., 427 Phil. 221, 227 (2002).cranad
23Astorga and Repol Law Offices v. Roxas, A.M. No. P-12-3029, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 374, 383.cranad
24Gonzalez v. Calo, A.M. No. P-12-3028, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 109, 120.cranad
25 Id. 120-121.cranad
26Lambayong Teachers and Employees Cooperative v. Diaz, A.M. No. P-06-2246, July 11, 2012, 676 SCRA 74, 80-81.cranad
27Clerk of Court Marbas-Vizcarra v. Florendo, 369 Phil. 840, 849 (1999); Judge Cajot v. Cledera, 349 Phil. 907, 912 (1998).cranad
28 495 Phil. 10, 16-17 (2005).cranad
29Collado-Lacorte v. Rabena, A.M. No. P-09-2665, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 15, 21-22.cranad
30 Id.