A.M. No. P-12-3087 : Dionisio P. Pilot v. Renato B. Baron, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Br. 264, Pasig City
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. P-12-3087 : September 24, 2012
(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2720-P)
DIONISIO P. PILOT, Petitioner, v. RENATO B. BARON, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 264, PASIG CITY, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
On October 8, 2007, complainant filed a letter-complaint1ςrνll before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court charging respondent sheriff of grave misconduct2ςrνll for his failure/refusal to conduct the auction sale of the levied prope1ty pursuant to the Order of Execution issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 264 in Civil Case No. 66262.3ςrνll
Complainant is the judgment obligee in the Decision4ςrνll dated February 25, 2006 rendered in the aforementioned case, in the amount of P 516,297.50 with legal interest from December 1993, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees, each in the amount of P 50,000.00, as well as the costs of the suit.
To implement the writ of execution (writ) issued therein and for the payment of publication expenses, respondent sheriff asked and received from complainant the amount of P 15,000.00 and thereafter, levied the house and lot of the judgment obligors, Spouses Noel and Gregoria Bambalan (Sps. Bambalan), located in Bo. Rosario, Pasig City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. PT-78872. While the auction sale was scheduled on September 3, 2007, the same did not push through purportedly for lack of publication. Instead, it was reset to September 19, 2007, then to September 25, 2007 and later to October 5, 2007, which were all canceled on account of complainant's failure to heed respondent sheriff's additional demand of the amount of P 18,000.00 for publication expenses.
On September 25, 2007, respondent sheriff instructed complainant to proceed to his office to receive the amount of P 500,000.00 paid by the daughter of Sps. Bambalan. When the latter ignored the instruction, he offered to deliver the said amount for a sheriffs fee of 2.5% of the amount indicated in the notice of auction sale.5ςrνll Moreover, on several occasions, he solicited money from complainant for his cellphone load and transportation expenses in the service of the notice of sale.
Despite directives6ςrνll from the Court, respondent sheriff failed to submit his comment to the letter-complaint. A fine of P 1,000.00,7ςrνll later increased to P 2,000.00, 8ςrνll was imposed upon him which he likewise failed to pay, prompting the Court to declare the case submitted for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed.9ςrνll
The complaint has merit.
Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice since they are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts that would otherwise become empty victories for the prevailing party if not enforced.10ςrνll The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court characterizes sheriffs' functions as purely ministerial, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sheriffs are ministerial officers. They are agents of the law and not agents of the parties, neither of the creditor nor of the purchaser at a sale conducted by him. It follows, therefore, that the sheriff can make no compromise in an execution sale.
As a ministerial officer, a sheriff is expected to faithfully perform what is incumbent upon him, even in the absence of instruction.11ςrνll Thus, he must discharge his duties with due care and utmost diligence. In serving court writs and processes and in implementing court orders, he cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of his office and the efficient administration of justice.12ςrνll
Respondent sheriff, by his omission to file the required comment and to pay the fine imposed by the Court, disregarded the duty of every employee in the judiciary to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay. The same evinces lack of interest in clearing his name in the face of grave imputations, constituting an implied admission of the charges.13ςrνll Nonetheless, the Court evaluated and examined the records of the case and found sufficient basis in complainant's charges.
Records disclose that after levying on the property of the judgment obligors, respondent sheriff issued a notice of auction sale (notice) and accordingly scheduled the sale on September 3, 2007. It was, thus, incumbent upon him to comply with the requirements of Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (Rules) prior to the sale, namely, (a) to cause the posting of the notice for 20 days in 3 public places in Pasig City where the sale was to take place; (b) to cause the publication of the notice once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, selected by raffle; (c) to serve a written notice of the sale to the judgment obligors at least three days before the sale. However, notwithstanding receipt from the complainant of the amount of P 15,000.00 under an assurance that he would take care of everything, no auction sale was conducted on the scheduled date for lack of the required publication. Worse, he asked anew for publication expenses in a higher amount, and solicited money for his cellphone load, transportation expenses in the service of the notice, as well as sheriff's fee of 2.5% of the minimum bid amount indicated in the notice. Moreover, instead of conducting the auction sale as re-scheduled, he unjustifiably insisted that complainant accept the P 500,000.00 paid by the daughter of Sps. Bambalan which is below the amount sought to be recovered under the subject decision. He likewise failed to observe the proper procedural steps laid down in Section 10,14ςrνll Rule 141 of the Rules in collecting sums of money from a party-litigant. He should have (a) prepared an estimate of expenses to be incurred; (b) obtained court approval for such estimated expenses; (c) caused the interested party to deposit with the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff the corresponding amount; (d) secured from the Clerk of Court the said amount; (e) disbursed/liquidated his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ; and (f) refunded any unspent amount15ςrνll to the complainant.
Consequently, the Court finds respondent sheriff guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct when he unlawfully collected16ςrνll and pocketed the amount of P 15,000.00 intended to defray the expenses for the publication of the notice and enforcement of the writ of execution but which was not accordingly spent. He is likewise guilty of dereliction of duty in failing to observe the proper procedure in collecting execution expenses and conducting an execution sale.17ςrνll Moreover, he violated Canon III, Section 2(b) of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC,18ςrνll which prohibits court employees from receiving tips or any remuneration from parties to the actions or proceedings with the courts.19ςrνll
Under Section 5220ςrνll of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and grave misconduct are classified as grave offenses meriting the supreme penalty of dismissal from service21ςrνll even for the first offense. On the other hand, dereliction of duty for failure to comply with Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court is punishable with a fine of P 5,000.00.22ςrνll
Considering, however, the Resolution of the Court dated April 19, 2010 in A.M. No. 10-3-76-RTC which declared respondent sheriff dropped from the rolls effective May 4, 2009 for having been on absence without official leave (AWOL), the only appropriate imposable penalty is fine. Under the premises, the Court imposes upon him a fine in the reasonable amount of P 40,000.00, which may be deducted from his accrued leave credits, if sufficient.ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent RENATO B. BARON GUILTY of dishonesty and grave misconduct, violation of Canon III, Section 2(b) of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC and dereliction of duty, and is FINED in the amount of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P 40,000.00) to be deducted from his accrued leave credits, if sufficient.
Let copies of this Resolution be filed in the personal record of respondent and furnished him at his address of record.ςrαlαωlιbrαr
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
* Acting Member per Special Order No. 1308 dated September 21, 2012.
** Designated Member per Raffle dated September 24, 2012.
1ςrνll Rollo, pp.l-3. .
2ςrνll The OCA described the otTense as one for grave misconduct in its 1st Indorsement dated October 11, 2007 which required respondent sheriff to submit his comment to the letter-complaint, id. at 27.
3ςrνll A collection case against Philippine National Bank, Philippine State College of Aeronautics, Policarpio R. Zacarias and Spouses Noel and Gregoria Bambalan.
4ςrνll Rollo, pp. 4-18.
5ςrνll Id. at 20.
6ςrνll 1st Indorsement dated October 11, 2007, id. at 27; 1st Tracer letter dated January 9, 2008, id. at 28; and Resolutions of the Court dated April 1, 2009, id. at 31-32, September 9, 2009, id. at 33-34, and March 22, 2010, id. at 35-36.
7ςrνll Resolution dated September 9, 2009, id. at 33-34.
8ςrνll Resolution dated March 22, 2010, id. at 35-36.
9ςrνll Resolution dated June 1, 2011, id. at 38-39.
10ςrνll Santuyo v. Benito, A.M. No. P-05-1997 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1963-P), August 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 461, 467-468.
11ςrνll Erdenberger v. Aquino, A.M. No. P-10-2739 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3015-P), August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 44, 48.
12ςrνll Supra note 10.
13ςrνll Re: Criminal Case No. MC-02-5637 Against Arturo V. Peralta and Larry C. De Guzman, Employees of MeTC, Br. 31, Q.C., A.M. No. 02-8-198-MeTC, June 08, 2005, 459 SCRA 278, 285.
14ςrνll As amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC dated August 16, 2004.
15ςrνll Pasok v. Diaz, A.M. No. P-07-2300 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2231-P), November 29, 2011, 661 SCRA 483, 492-493.
16ςrνll Geronca v. Magalona, A.M. No. P-07-2398 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1621-P), February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 1, 6-7.
17ςrνll Id.
18ςrνll Otherwise known as the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
19ςrνll Supra note 15.
20ςrνll Section 52 pertinently provides:
Classification of Offenses. Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
1. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
1. Dishonesty
1st offense Dismissal
x x x x
3. Grave Misconduct
1st offense Dismissal.
x x x x
21ςrνll Taguinod v. Tomas, A.M. No. P-09-2660, November 29, 2011, 661 SCRA 496, 502.
22ςrνll Tiongco v. Molina, A.M. No. P-00-1373 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 97-365-P), September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 294, 300-301.
