529 Phil. 436
PER CURIAM:
First allegation: Sheriff Zaldivar has so many unserved writs of executions and no returns were made. Perusal to Zaldivar's answer letter dated February 12, 2003, he admitted that 416 writs were issued, but he was able to make only 187 returns, because they were issued outside his territorial jurisdiction. However, he was not able to make clear statements about the specific case number[s] and the places to be served.
Second allegation: That Sheriff Zaldivar had served some of the writs but failed to turnover [sic] the proceeds to the judgment creditors, failed to undertake proper returns of the writs and made false returns.
(1) In the case of People vs. Galaritta under Criminal Case No. 97-01-167 to 97-01-175, Sheriff Zaldivar made a return on October 3, 2002, wherein he stated that the accused was out of the [c]ountry, therefore, [the] writ was unsatisfied (Annex "A", report). However, when an alias writ was served by another sheriff (Drefus G. Acenas), it was shown that subject amount was already received earlier by Sheriff Zaldivar (Annex "B", report) and shown in the receipts signed by Zaldivar, dated June 18, 2001 in the amount of P20,000.00 (Annex "B-1", report); another receipt in the amount of P20,000.00 (Annex "B-2", report); another receipt dated June 26, 2002 in the amount of P20,000.00 (Annex "B-3", report); and another receipt dated November 19, 2002 in the amount of P13,331.00 (Annex "B-4", report).
(2) In the case of Tri-Star Paints Center, et [al.] vs. Porferio Borromeo, Jr., Civil Case No. 99-AUG-627, a [m]otion by [p]laintiff's counsel praying for disciplinary action against Sheriff Zaldivar for failure to turn over [to] the plaintiff the amount collected from the defendant (Annexes "C", "C-1", "C-2", report) as shown in the receipts (Annexes "D", "D-1", "D-2" and "D-3", report) in the total amount of P48,000.00.
(3) In the case of Virgo Appliance Corp. vs. Judith Jaurique, Civil Case No. C1-APR-266, an [e]x-parte [m]otion was filed by [p]laintiff's counsel, praying for [a] possible administrative charge against Sheriff Zaldivar for his failure to account and turn over to the plaintiff the sum of P2,500.00 that he collected from the defendant (Annexes "E", "E-1", and "E-2", report).
(4) In the case of Northern Mindanao Sales Corp. vs. Rober[t] Mole, Civil Case No. C-DEC-1135, it was shown that Sheriff Zaldivar received the amount of P3,000.00 from defendant Mole but he again failed to turn over the proceeds to the plaintiff (Annexes "F" and "F-1", report).
(5) On May 20, 2003, Eduardo D. Adviento, Branch Manager of Philacor Credit Corporation, wrote a letter to Judge Algodon, (Annex "G") wherein [the] former received a Notice of Auction Sale involving one unit refrigerator that was recovered from its creditor in Civil Case No. 99 June 501, however, on the date of the auction sale on April 30, 2003, Sheriff Zaldivar did not appear and the subject unit could not be located.
Recommendations: With respect to allegations number one and two, necessary administrative and criminal proceedings should be instituted since the evidence against Sheriff Zaldivar are documented and he failed to present contrary evidence to that effect.[13]In its Report dated 15 April 2004 ("Report"), the OCA recommended that respondent sheriff be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in the government or any of its agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The OCA's Report reads:
In the first allegation, respondent should be held liable for gross misconduct for failure to make the returns of 229 writs issued by the court.As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, except for the Northern Mindanao case, the cases discussed in Judge Lloren's report and, subsequently, in the OCA's report, were different from the cases mentioned in the letter-complaint. Four new cases were presented before Judge Lloren and the two other original cases were not pursued by complainant judge.
In the second allegation, respondent should be held liable for dishonesty and violation of the Revised Penal Code for misappropriating or converting to the prejudice of another, money, goods or any personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission or for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same x x x (Article 315(b), RPC).[14]
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 reasons therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during 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 furnished the parties. (Emphasis supplied)The Rules clearly provide that it is mandatory for sheriffs to execute and make a return on the writ of execution within 30 days from receipt of the writ and every 30 days thereafter until it is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. Even if the writs are unsatisfied or only partially satisfied, sheriffs must still file the reports so that the court, as well as the litigants, may be informed of the proceedings undertaken to implement the writ.[26] Periodic reporting also provides the court insights on the efficiency of court processes after promulgation of judgment. Over-all, the purpose of periodic reporting is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions.[27]
SEC. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. –In this case, the judgment debtor entrusted the money to respondent sheriff for the specific purpose of satisfying the judgment debt. Respondent sheriff's receipt of the money in his official capacity and his failure to turn over the amount to the judgment creditor or the clerk of court is an act of misappropriation of funds amounting to dishonesty.[33] His failure to issue official receipts for the amount is also a violation of the General Auditing and Accounting Rules.[34] Likewise, the records of the case reveal that respondent sheriff did not file a Sheriff's Return relative to the writ's implementation and his receipt of the money.
(a) Immediate payment on demand. – The officer shall enforce an 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 the 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.
If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not present to receive payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the clerk of court that issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable, deposit said amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest government depository bank of the Regional Trial Court of the locality. (Emphasis supplied)
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. Respondent's behavior erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the administration of justice. He no longer deserves to stay in the service any longer.[37]WHEREFORE, we FIND respondent Rene D. Zaldivar, Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City, GUILTY of dishonesty, aggravated by gross neglect of duty and gross inefficiency for which we DISMISS him from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. We ORDER respondent Sheriff Zaldivar to turn over the amount of P3,000 to the clerk of court within ten days from finality of this Decision.
[1] Rollo, pp. 5 and 7.
[2] Id. at 6, 8-9. Three receipts for P1,000 dated 30 October 2002, 7 December 2002 and 13 January 2003.
[3] Id. at 38.
[4] Id. at 11.
[5] Id. at 10.
[6] Id. at 12-13.
[7] Id. at 16.
[8] Id. at 17.
[9] Id. at 16.
[10] Id. at 18.
[11] Id. at 19.
[12] Id. at 20.
[13] Id. at 20-21.
[14] Report, pp. 3-4.
[15] Id. at 4.
[16] I The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court 205.
[17] Rollo, p. 2.
[18] Manguerra v. Judge Arriesgado, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1854, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 161.
[19] Martinez v. NLRC, 339 Phil. 176 (1997).
[20] Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116181, 6 January 1997, 266 SCRA 136.
[21] Tan v. Herras, A.M. No. P-90-404, 11 March 1991, 195 SCRA 1.
[22] PAL v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49188, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 557.
[23] Portes v. Tepace, A.M. No. P-97-1235, 30 January 1997, 267 SCRA 185.
[24] Jumio v. Egay-Eviota, A.M. No. P-92-746, 29 March 1994, 231 SCRA 551.
[25] Perez v. Suller, 320 Phil. 1 (1995).
[26] Concerned Citizen v. Torio, 433 Phil. 649 (2002).
[27] Benitez v. Acosta, A.M. No. P-01-1473, 27 March 2001, 355 SCRA 380.
[28] Aquino v. Martin, A.M. No. P-03-1703, 18 September 2003, 411 SCRA 242.
[29] Rollo, pp. 7-9. Respondent sheriff issued three receipts for P1,000 dated 30 October 2002, 7 December 2002 and 13 January 2003.
[30] Id. at 6.
[31] Id. at 8.
[32] Id. at 9.
[33] Jerez v. Paninsuro, 363 Phil. 522 (1999).
[34] Supra.
[35] Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Section 55, Rule IV.
[36] Id., Section 52 (A) (1), Rule IV.
[37] 314 Phil. 460, 472 (1995).