THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. P-18-3864 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4469-P), June 10, 2019
BEATRIZ B. NADALA, COMPLAINANT, v. REMCY J. DENILA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 68, DUMANGAS, ILOILO, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
In a verified Complaint1 dated June 26, 2015, Beatriz B. Nadala (complainant), through counsel, charged Remcy J. Denila2 (respondent), Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumangas, Iloilo, Branch 68, with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, abuse of authority, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and gross inefficiency, in connection with the respondent's unjustified refusal to implement the writ of execution issued in a small claims case docketed as Civil Case No. 2012-024, entitled Beatriz B. Nadala v. Emma Maxima Declines.
Complainant3 is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2012-024, for Sum of Money,4 filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo. On November 30, 2012, the MTC rendered a Decision5 ordering defendant Emma Declines (Declines) to pay the complainant the amount of P100,000.00.
On June 28, 2013, the complainant moved to implement the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 2012-024. As a matter of course, the MTC granted the motion and issued the writ of execution on October 9, 2013.6 The writ specifically directed the respondent, being the Deputy Sheriff of the RTC, to implement it.7
Meanwhile, Declines filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC. On May 23, 2014, she was able to secure a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effective for twenty (20) days which enjoined the implementation of the writ.8
On June 25, 2014, the complainant filed a Manifestation,9 seeking for the immediate implementation of the writ considering that the TRO issued by the RTC had already expired.10 On September 15, 2014, the respondent filed a Manifestation,11 requesting that he be relieved from implementing the writ of execution as he had to attend to the needs of his wife, who was then diagnosed with breast cancer (Stage IIIA).12
Complainant then filed, on November 5, 2014, an Ex-Parte Motion to Direct Sheriff of the RTC, Iloilo, to Implement Writ of Execution.13 The motion was left unresolved. Thereafter, upon learning that the respondent reported back to work, the complainant filed, on February 23, 2015, a Motion to Withdraw Ex-Parte Motion, etc. and to Direct the Branch Sheriff to Implement Writ of Execution.14 Interestingly, Declines opposed the motion.15
On July 23, 2015, the complainant filed an Omnibus Motion,16 praying that all pending incidents be resolved and that the Clerk of Court or the Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC of Iloilo City be directed to implement the writ. The MTC granted the complainant's motion in its Order17 dated August 3, 2015 and specifically ordered the respondent to implement the writ.
In his Comment,18 the respondent invoked his previous request for relief from the implementation of the writ which was left unresolved by the MTC. He claimed that he expected that the MTC would grant his prayer and, like the complainant, he was also waiting for the court's action on the motions.19 He further averred that no representations were made by the complainant or her counsel for him to implement the writ.20
Complainant, in her Reply,21 maintained that the respondent miserably failed to implement the writ. She pointed out that the TRO was issued on May 23, 2014. Thus, more than seven (7) months had elapsed from the time the writ was issued on October 9, 2013 until the issuance of the TRO on May 23, 2014. She contended that after the TRO's expiration, the respondent was duty bound to implement the writ in the absence of a permanent injunction against it. Complainant added that the respondent's failure to implement the writ of execution was because Declines is a long-time family friend of the respondent, as stated in the latter's Manifestation22 dated August 11, 2015.
In his Rejoinder23 dated December 8, 2015, the respondent asserted that the reason behind the filing of the petition for certiorari by Declines before the RTC was that he went on to do his job. The subsequent issuance of the TRO, however, prevented him from implementing the writ.24 He further manifested that he has been already relieved by the MTC from the implementation of the writ of execution, and therefore, this should not be taken to have caused delay in the implementation of the writ but an occasion where the complainant may proceed with finding suitable remedy for her purposes.25
1. the instant administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Sheriff IV Remcy J. Denila, Branch 68, [RTC], Dumangas, Iloilo; andThe pertinent portion of the findings of the OCA reads:
2. respondent Sheriff Denila be found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT in the performance of his duties, and be FINED in the amount of Twenty[-]Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), to be paid to the Court within thirty (30) days from notice, with a STERN WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.27 (Emphases in the original)
Evaluating the circumstances surrounding the instant matter, it would not be amiss to assert that [respondent's] liability has evolved from being a mere neglect of duty into a misconduct which is so gross in character. It is grave misconduct since there is substantial evidence showing that the act complained of was corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constituted flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules. [Respondent's] deliberate inaction to enforce a writ of execution for two (2) long years in order to favor the losing litigant who is a long-time close family friend of his is plainly a corrupt act which shows an intent to flagrantly disregard the law. It constitutes grave misconduct that corrodes respect for the courts.28 (Citation omitted)The OCA, in imposing a P25,000.00 fine as penalty, noted that it is the first time that the respondent may be held administratively liable. It added that this will also prevent any undue adverse effect on the public service should his office be left vacant even for a short period of time.29
Thus, pursuant to its rule-making power, the Court, under the present Constitution, can adopt a special rule of procedure to govern small claims cases and select pilot courts that would empower the people to bring suits before them pro se to resolve legal disputes involving simple issues of law and procedure without the need for legal representation and extensive judicial intervention. This system will enhance access to justice, especially by those who cannot afford the high costs of litigation even in cases of relatively small value. It is envisioned that by facilitating the traffic of cases through simple and expeditious rules and means, our Court can improve the perception of justice in this country, thus, giving citizens a renewed "stake" in preserving peace in the land. x x x.43 (Emphasis Ours)The Court has further elucidated that the theory behind the small claims system is that ordinary litigation fails to bring practical justice to the parties when the disputed claim is small, because the time and expense required by the ordinary litigation process are so disproportionate to the amount involved that it discourages a just resolution of the dispute. The small claims process is designed to function quickly and informally. There are no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence.44
The last standing frontier that the victorious litigant must face is often another difficult process - the execution stage. In this stage, a litigant who has won the battle might lose the war. Thus, the sheriffs, being agents of the court, play an important role, particularly in the matter of implementing the writ of execution. Indeed, [sheriffs] "are tasked to execute final judgments of courts. If not enforced, such decisions are empty victories of the prevailing parties. They must therefore comply with their mandated ministerial duty to implement writs promptly and expeditiously. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court's writs and processes and implementing its order, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice."48 (Citation omitted)Being the frontline representative of the justice system, a sheriff must always exert every effort and, indeed, consider it his bounden duty to perform his duties in order to maintain public trust. He must see to it that the final stage in the litigation process - the execution of the judgment - is carried out with no unnecessary delay, in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of justice. A decision left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed due to his neglect of duty renders it inutile; and worse, the parties who are prejudiced thereby tend to condemn the entire judicial system.49
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2 "Remcy K. Denila" in some parts of the rollo.
3 Per complainant's representation, she was 84 years of age when she filed the present administrative complaint.
4 Filed under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
5Rollo, pp. 7-8.
6 Id. at 11-12.
7 Id. at 12.
8 Id. at 13.
9 Id. at 14.
10 Id.
11 Dated September 8, 2014. Id. at 15.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 16-17.
14 Id. at 18-20.
15 Id. at 56-57.
16 Id. at 62-63.
17 Id. at 64.
18 Id. at 42-46.
19 Id. at 44.
20 Dated November 5, 2015. Id. at 45.
21 Id. at 48-55.
22 Id. at 65.
23 Id. at 68-70.
24 Id. at 70.
25 Id.
26 Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva. Id. at 78-83.
27 Id. at 82-83.
28 Id. at 82.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 85.
31Lucas v. Dizon, 747 Phil. 88, 97 (2014).
32 Considering that the case was decided prior to the effectivity of the 2016 Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, reference herein is taken from the former Rule.
33SEC. 27. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure - The Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar as they are not inconsistent with this rule.
34See Section 9, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
35Guerrero-Boylon v. Boyles, 614 Phil. 565, 573 (2011).
36Anico v. PilipiƱa, 670 Phil. 460, 470 (2011).
37 Id.
38Sec. 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 thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or 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)
39Anico v. PilipiƱa, supra note 36, at 469 (2011).
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 674 Phil. 21 (2011).
43 Id. at 25, citing A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES, effective October 1, 2008.
44 Id. at 26.
45 Id.
46Aquino v. Martin, 458 Phil. 76. 82 (2003).
47 747 Phil. 88 (2014).
48 Id. at 95-96.
49Judge Calo v. Dizon, 583 Phil. 510, 526-527 (2008).
50 Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 1101502 dated November 8, 2011. Under Section 124 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the existing RRACCS shall continue to be applied to all pending cases which were filed prior to the effectivity of the Rules, provided that it will not unduly prejudice substantive rights.
51Exec. Judge Roman v. Fortaleza, 650 Phil. 1, 8 (2010).