425 Phil. 28; 99 OG No. 30, 4769 (July 28, 2003)
PER CURIAM:
At the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice.[1]
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finding merit in the motion for summary judgment, hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant, ordering the latter to pay the former:On September 3, 1997, FPHC filed with the trial court a motion for execution pending appeal; DBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision.[5]“1. the sum of P19,998,400 as unpaid rentals inclusive of interest as 12% per annum as of 31 March 1995, plus interest at 12% per annum on the amount of P9,999,200 after 31 March 1995 until full payment of the principal;
“2. attorney’s fees equivalent to 20% of the amount claimed in the preceding paragraph;
“3. the costs.
“SO ORDERED.”
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court, finding the “Motion For Execution Pending Appeal” to be well-taken, hereby grants the same. Let a writ of execution issue accordingly upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P30 million, subject to the approval of the court.On November 25,1997, FPHC filed an ex-parte motion for appointment of special sheriff with the trial court, praying that Sheriff Nequinto of Branch 145 be appointed to implement the writ of execution.[7]
“SO ORDERED.”
“TO: Special Sheriff RUBEN S. NEQUINTOWe quote the Court Administrator’s narration of how respondent Sheriff implemented the writ:[10]Regional Trial CourtMakati City
“GREETINGS:
“WE COMMAND YOU that of the goods and chattels of DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES with address at DBP Building, Makati Avenue corner Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, Metro Manila, you cause to be made the following:“together with your lawful fees for service of this execution all in money of the Philippines which plaintiff recovered in this Court on August 18, 1997 against the defendant and that you tender the same to said plaintiff aside from your own fees on this execution, and to like-wise return this writ into this Court Immediately thereafter with you proceedings indorsed thereon.
“1) the sum of P19,998,400 as unpaid rentals inclusive of interest at 12% per annum as of 31 March 1995, plus interest at 12% per annum on the amount of P9,999,200 after 31 March 1995 until full payment of the principal;“2) attorney’s fees equivalent to 20% of the amount claimed in the preceding paragraph;“3) the costs.
“But if sufficient personal property cannot be found whereof to satisfy this execution an lawful fees thereon, then you are commanded that of the lands and buildings of defendant you cause to be made the sums of money in the manner required buy law and the Rules of Court, and to make return of your proceedings with this Writ immediately thereafter.
“On November 26, 1997, respondent Sheriff accompanied by FPHC’s counsel, Atty. Fernando F. Manas, Jr., and FPHC’s representatives Atty. Pedro Malabanan an Anthony Jay B. Consunji, proceeded to the DBP Head Office building at Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City.On January 27, 1998, DBP through its Chief Legal Counsel, Atty. Carlos R. Cruz filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court (hereafter, OCA) an administrative complaint against Sheriff Nequinto praying that he be disciplinarily dealt with.[18]
“After gaining entry into DBP’s premises, respondent went to the Cash Management Department and announced his threat to seal the Banks’ vault and to levy DBP’s computers and office equipment if his demand for payment is not complied with. Respondents Sheriff told Bank officials that the amount to be executed against DBP is P46,310,684.94 which amount greatly exceeds the one stated in the Writ of Execution.
“The lawyers of the Bank requested the respondent to give them time to verify the Writ of Execution in his possession. The respondent sheriff was also informed that DBP had not yet received any copy of the Order granting FPHC’s motion for execution pending appeal. They also called the Sheriff’s attention to the fact that the amount sought to be enforced (P46,310,684.93)[11] does not correspond to the amount indicated in the writ. Respondent was also shown a copy of DBP’s own computation of the amount taking into account the interests and costs.[12] Moreover, respondent was advised that his manner of enforcing the writ (sealing the Bank’s vault) will disrupt, if not paralyze the bank’s and its branches’ operations. However, despite the Bank’s objections, respondent insisted on sealing the bank’s vault if he is not paid in cash and threatened to forcibly seize any money he may possibly retrieve from the teller’s cages. Because of the respondent’s adamant insistence to seal the Bank’s vault, the Bank was constrained, under protest, to issue a Manager’s Check for P10 Million to respondent[13] and offered to the respondent its property covered by TCT No. 196837 located in Sta. Cruz, Manila which has an appraised value of P18,387,900.00 to be levied upon, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent refused to accept the offer and insisted that he be paid in cash.
“In spite of the said payment and offer of real property for levy, respondent issued a “notice of Levy or Sale on Execution”[14] wherein he made it appear that he was levying on certain personal properties of DBP which he did not specifically describe but generally referred to as : “fifteen (15) units Personal computers 386 MITAC, Samsung; One Hundred (100) units office tables with chairs.” Unknown to the complainant respondent also served notices of garnishment of DBP’s deposits with the Land Bank of the Philippines and the PCI Bank.
“In view of respondent’s unjustified rejection of DBP’s offer and patently abusive manner in implementing the writ, complainant bank filed a “Motion for Approval of Supersedeas Bond an for Holding in Abeyance the Implementation of the Writ of Execution and Sale on Execution”[15] calling the attention of the Judge to the irregularities in the proceedings of respondent. Respondent sheriff, on December 2, 1997, proceeded to bank’s head office for the purpose of conducting the “sale” of the alleged “levied properties” despite knowledge of DBP’s Motion and the fact that respondent was served with a letter from he Bank’s Chief Legal Counsel interposing vigorous objection to the scheduled sale on execution.[16]
“In his “sheriff’s Report on Execution” dated 3 December 1997 respondent falsely made it appear that he was prevented from entering the building of DBP.[17] In the same Report, respondent willfully and deliberately concealed the fact that the bank had issued a P10 Million check to him, that it had offered for levy its real property valued at P18 Million and that he issued Writs of Garnishments involving DBP’s deposits with the Land Bank of the Philippines and other banks.”
“Sec. 9 Execution of judgments for money, how enforced – (1) Immediate payment on demand – The officer shall enforce and execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ (underscoring ours)”Rule 39, Section 14, further provides:
“Section 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 therefore. 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 proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.”Respondent Sheriff Nequinto also denied DBP its option to choose which of its property may be levied upon, as provided for in Section 9 (b), Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court.
“However, with regard to the failure of respondent to abide diligently with Sec. 6, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court which provides that:Neither did Sheriff Nequinto mention that DBP offered its real property valued at P18 Million for levy. We find abusive and without legal basis his insistence on enforcing FPHC’s bloated computation of P46,310,684.93, as the judgment debt, instead of the amount of P19,998,400.00 stated in the writ.“SEC. 6 Officer’s return – Immediately after executing the order the officer must make a return thereon to the clerk of judge of the court from which the order issued, with a full statement of his proceedings under the order and a complete inventory of the property attached, together with any counter-bond given by the party against whom the attachment is issued, and serve a copy of any such counter-bond on the applicant or his lawyer”.“Respondent therefore could not be unaware of such basic rule to evade his positive duty. Crystal clear in the Sheriff’s Return dated 03 December 1997 is the fact that respondent omitted to mention what transpired on 26 November 1997 when DBP tendered the P10 million check. We are inclined to believe then that respondent intentionally and deliberately made the questioned omission considering that the amount involved is quite impossible to be overlooked. Moreover, nowhere can we find in respondent’s explanation the reason why he tried to conceal the said misdeed so as to refute the charges made in the complaint. His nonfeasance may only mean that he was trying to mislead the court and herein complainant (DBP). (underscoring ours)”