108 OG No. 21, 2451 (May 21, 2012)
The Court resolves the complaint
[1] filed by spouses Sur and Rita Villa and Leticia Gorembalem Valenzuela
(complainants) against: (1) Presiding Judge Roberto L. Ayco
(Judge Ayco) for
undue delay in resolving motions, gross ignorance of the law, bias and
abuse of authority; (2) Officer-in-Charge/Legal Researcher Virginia
Bartolome
(OIC Bartolome) for gross ignorance of the law and gross inefficiency; (3) Sheriff IV Crispin S. Calsenia, Jr.
(Sheriff Calsenia) for grave abuse of authority and gross neglect of duty, all the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato
(RTC). The complaint stems from Civil Case No. 386-N entitled "
Spouses
Sixto and Yolanda Fernandez v. Spouses Miguel and Marina Gorembalem;
Estate of Miguel Gorembalem, represented by Crispina G. Artienda, et
al.. Third Party Claimant" filed before the RTC for Specific Performance with Damages.
Complainants
allege that they are the legal heirs of Miguel Gorembalem, who was the
named defendant in the civil case. In the RTC decision
[2] dated October 2, 1992, Miguel Gorembalem was held liable to pay the plaintiffs. On January 25, 2006, the Court of Appeals
(CA)
dismissed Gorembalem's appeal. Thus, on March 19, 2006, the judgment
against Gorembalem became final and executory. The case was remanded to
the RTC for execution. On August 4, 2006, the RTC, presided by Judge
Ayco, directed the issuance of a writ of execution on the said case.
[3]On
August 25, 2006, Sheriff Calsenia issued a Notice of Levy on the
property of Gorembalem and scheduled an execution sale since the
defendants failed to settle the judgment obligation.
On September 26, 2006, complainants filed a Third Party Claim
[4]
on the said property, but it was denied by the RTC in its Order dated
March 7, 2007. Complainants moved for a reconsideration on April 27,
2007
[5] but Judge Ayco
denied the same only on July 31, 2008 or "fifteen (15) months from
filing and more than eight (8) months from the time such motion was
submitted for resolution."
[6]
Complainants posit that the delay constitutes gross inefficiency that
runs afoul to Rules 1.02 of Canon 1 and 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct as well as SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88.
[7]Thereafter, complainants filed their Notice of Appeal
[8] which was likewise denied in the RTC Order
[9] dated August 29, 2008 for late filing. Their Motion for Reconsideration
[10] was likewise denied in an Order
[11] dated January 16, 2009.
On
March 10, 2009, the plaintiffs in the said Civil Case filed their
Motion for Writ of Possession/Demolition/Break Open and set the hearing
on March 13, 2009.
[12] Complainants alleged that their counsel only received the copy of the said motion on March 18, 2009 or
five days after the scheduled hearing.
[13]Despite complainants' Opposition
[14] to the motion, on April 30, 2009, Judge Ayco ordered the issuance of the Writ of Possession and Demolition.
[15]On May 14, 2009, OIC Bartolome, issued the Writ of Possession and Demolition,
[16] which according to complainants was premature.
[17]
Complainants also believe that OIC Bartolome displayed either bias or
gross ignorance of the law and incompetence when she received the Motion
for Writ of Possession/Demolition/Break Open, when it clearly violated
the 3-day notice rule, making it a mere scrap of paper.
Then, on
July 25, 2009, Sheriff Calsenia implemented the writ of demolition
without prior service of the notice to vacate on the complainants.
[18]
As a result of the demolition, the complainants suffered various
damages and loss of expensive materials. They claim that the respondent
sheriff failed to make a proper accounting and inventory of the
materials taken from the property.
[19]After
the demolition, the daughter of the spouses-complainant went to the RTC
Office to ask for a copy of the records. OIC Bartolome, however, "in a
loud voice and overbearing conduct,"
[20] shouted at their daughter.
In his Comment dated January 18, 2010,
[21]
Judge Ayco admitted that the order denying the motion for
reconsideration was indeed issued beyond the 90-day period, after it was
deemed submitted for resolution. He, however, denied the complainants'
allegation and argued that the said incident was isolated and should
not be strictly held against him. Judge Ayco countered that their
complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) the motion
for reconsideration would have been dismissed anyway as it was filed
late; (2) the filing of the motion was merely a ploy to obstruct and
impede the conduct of the execution sale; (3) his branch was a single
sala court catering to seven large municipalities and burdened with
heavy caseload; and (4) this was the first time that he had been charged
with delay in the resolution of a motion.
In her Comment dated January 20, 2010,
[22]
OIC Bartolome explained that it was her duty to receive the pleadings
being filed with the court, such as plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of
Writ of Possession and/or Demolition, but it was not her duty to assess
the propriety of the pleadings filed. Likewise, she issued the Writ of
Possession and/or Demolition because it was her ministerial duty to
issue it in compliance with the April 30, 2009 Order of the court and as
mandated by the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court. Finally, she
denied the supposed display of animosity towards complainants' daughter
when the latter asked for a copy of the records.
In his Comment dated January 21, 2010,
[23]
Sheriff Calsenia explained that he served the Writ of Possession and/or
Demolition to the complainants as part of his duty as a sheriff. He
insisted that the implementation of the writ, contrary to the claim of
complainants, did not cause any undue damage because the piggery was
already vacant when the demolition took place on July 29, 2009. In fact,
Barangay Kagawad Nelson Da-as and Police Officer III Donato Anatado
were present on the day of the demolition. In his Supplemental Comment,
[24] Sheriff Calsenia denied
that he mishandled complainants' belongings because the house was
already empty at the time of the demolition. He also denied stealing
building materials from the site and even advised complainants'
representative, Johnmilgen Villa, to get the remaining materials but,
apparently, he failed to take them. He claimed that he did not notice
that plaintiffs took some of the old iron sheets and G.I. pipes because
he was preoccupied with the supervision of the demolition. When he
learned of it, he immediately advised the plaintiffs to return the
materials but they refused, so he directed the recording and inventory
of the items taken by them.
The Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), in its Report dated May 10, 2011,
[25]
found OIC Bartolome to be innocent of the charges and recommended the
dismissal of the administrative complaint against her. With respect to
Judge Ayco, the OCA considered him liable for undue delay in resolving
the complainants' motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 386-N.
As to Sheriff Calsenia, the OCA found him to be administratively liable
for his failure to serve a notice to vacate prior to the implementation
of the writ of possession and demolition. Accordingly, the OCA
recommended that Judge Ayco be admonished and warned that a repetition
of the same or similar acts would merit a more severe penalty, and
Sheriff Calsenia be penalized with two months suspension with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or equivalent acts in the future
would warrant a stricter penalty.
After careful consideration of
the case, the Court finds the recommendations of the OCA to be
well-taken, except as to the penalty with respect to Sheriff Calsenia.
The
Court agrees with the OCA's recommendation to dismiss the case against
OIC Bartolome for lack of merit. Complainants claimed that OIC
Bartolome should not have accepted the plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance
of Writ of Possession and Demolition on account of the absence of the
notice of hearing and failure to comply with the three-day notice rule
on hearing of motions.
A scrutiny of the records reveals that the
said motion enclosed a notice of hearing scheduled on March 13, 2009.
At any rate, her issuance of the Writ of Possession and Demolition was
pursuant to the April 30, 2009 Order of the RTC and to her ministerial
duty to abide by such instruction. As to the allegation of discourteous
conduct against OIC Bartolome, the complainants failed to substantiate
it. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the
respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. The
complainant must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Otherwise, the complaint should be dismissed.
[26]With
respect to Judge Ayco, the Court stresses that the propriety or
impropriety of the motion for reconsideration is judicial in nature and
therefore, beyond the scope of this administrative proceedings. He
however, cannot be excused for the delay in resolving complainants'
motion for reconsideration. Records show that the motion was deemed
submitted for resolution on November 16, 2007,
[27]
and Judge Ayco denied the motion only on July 31, 2008. As found out by
the OCA, it took eight months for him to resolve the said motion which
was in violation of Rule 37, Section 4
[28] of the Rules of Court requiring said motions to be resolved within thirty (30) days from the time of submission.
The
public's faith and confidence in the judicial system depends largely on
the judicious and prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending
before the courts.
[29]
Failure to decide a case or resolve a motion within the reglementary
period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of
administrative sanction against the erring judge.
[30]Under
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in
rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious offense.
Pursuant to Section 11 of the same rule, such offense is punishable by:
- Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
- A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
In
Judge Angeles v. Judge Sempio Diy,
[31]
however, the Court mitigated the penalty to admonition considering that
it was the respondent judge's first infraction of the rules and in the
absence of bad faith or malice. Following the said ruling, the Court
approves the recommendation of the OCA to admonish Judge Ayco and
sternly warn him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
be dealt more severely.
With respect to Sheriff Calsenia, the
Court finds that he failed to strictly comply with the requirement of
prior notice to vacate before demolition as required by the rules.
Section 10(c) of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides
the procedure in the enforcement of the writ. To quote:
Sec. 10(c). Delivery or restitution of real property.
- The officer shall demand of the person against whom the judgment for
the delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and all persons
claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the property within three (3) working days,
and restore possession thereof to the judgment obligee; otherwise, the
officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the assistance, if
necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as
may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the judgment
obligee in possession of such property. Any costs, damages, rents or
profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the same manner as
a judgment for money. [Emphasis supplied]
It is the duty of the sheriff to give notice of such writ and demand from the defendant (
in this case, the complainants)
to vacate the property within three days. Only after such period can
the sheriff enforce the writ by the bodily removal of defendant and his
personal belongings.
[32]
This notice requirement is anchored on the fundamentals of justice and
fair play. The law discourages any form of arbitrary and oppressive
conduct in the execution of an otherwise legitimate act.
[33]
Thus, a sheriff must strictly comply with the Rules of Court in
executing a writ. Any act deviating from the procedure prescribed by
the Rules of Court is tantamount to misconduct and necessitates
disciplinary action.
[34]The
Court recognizes the fact that sheriffs play a vital role in the
administration of justice. In view of their important position, their
conduct should always be geared towards maintaining the prestige and
integrity of the court. In
Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, [35]
the Court explained that sheriffs have the obligation to perform the
duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their
abilities.
[36] They must always hold inviolate and revitalize the principle that a public office is a public trust.
[37] As court personnel, their conduct must be beyond reproach and free from any doubt that may infect the judiciary.
[38] They must be careful and proper in their behavior.
[39]
They must use reasonable skill and diligence in performing their
official duties, especially when the rights of individuals may be
jeopardized by neglect.
[40] They are ranking officers of the court entrusted with a fiduciary role.
[41]
They perform an important piece in the administration of justice and
they are required to discharge their duties with integrity, reasonable
dispatch, due care, and circumspection. Anything below the standard is
unacceptable.
[42] This is
because in serving the court's writs and processes and in implementing
the orders of the court, sheriffs cannot afford to err without affecting
the efficiency of the process of the administration of justice.
[43]
Sheriffs are at the grassroots of our judicial machinery and are
indispensably in close contact with 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 echoed in the
conduct, official or otherwise, of the people who work thereat, from the
judge to the least and lowest of the ranks.
[44]In
this case, Sheriff Calsenia was not able to faithfully do what was
required and expected of him. Thus, the Court agrees with the OCA that
Sheriff Calsenia is guilty of simple misconduct. Under Section 52,
B(2), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, simple misconduct is punishable by suspension for one
(1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and
dismissal for the second offense. Considering that it is the first
offense of Sheriff Calsenia, the Court hereby imposes upon Sheriff
Calsenia the penalty of three (3) months suspension with stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt more
severely in the future.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against
respondent Officer-in-Charge/Legal Researcher Virginia M. Bartolome,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato, is
DISMISSED for lack of merit; respondent Judge Roberto L. Ayco is hereby pronounced
GUILTY
for undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration of the
third-party claimants in Civil Case No. 386-N and accordingly
ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same or equivalent acts shall be dealt more
severely in the future; and respondent Sheriff IV Crispin S. Calsenia,
Jr. is found
GUILTY of simple misconduct and accordingly
SUSPENDED from the service for three (3) months without pay and other fringe benefits with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall merit a more severe penalty.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio,* Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Abad, and
Sereno,** JJ., concur.
*
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosadado
M. Peralta per Special Order No. 1029 dated June 30, 2011.
** Designated as additional member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 1028 dated June 21, 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 24-31.
[2] Penned by Judge Cristeto O. Dinopol.
[3] Rollo, p. 35.
[4] Id. at 32-34.
[5] Id. at 37-42.
[6] Id. at 25.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 47-48.
[9] Id. at 49.
[10] Id. at 50-52.
[11] Id. at 53-55.
[12] Id. at 56-60.
[13] Id. at 26.
[14] Id. at 61-64.
[15] Id. at 65-68.
[16] Id. at 78-79.
[17] Id. at 26.
[18] Id. at 28.
[19] Id. at 29.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at 94-105.
[22] Id. at 173-182.
[23] Id. at 321-329.
[24] Id. at 330-332.
[25] Id. at 372-383.
[26] Adajar v. Develos, 512 Phil. 9, 24-25 (2005).
[27] Rollo, p. 46.
[28] Section 4. Resolution of motion.-
A motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be resolved within
thirty (30) days from the time it is submitted for resolution.
[29] Gallego v. Acting Judge Doronila, 389 Phil. 677, 681-682 (2000).
[30] Id. at 684.
[31] A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248, September 29, 2010.
[32] Lu v. Judge Siapno, 390 Phil. 489, 498 (2000).
[33] Raymundo v. Calaguas, 490 Phil. 320, 325 (2005).
[34] Tan v. Dael, 390 Phil. 841, 845 (2000).
[35] A.M. No. P-04-1786 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1341-P), 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 265, 275-276.
[36] Pecson v. Sicat, 358 Phil. 606, 615-616 (1998).
[37] Ventura v. Concepcion, 399 Phil. 566, 571 (2000).
[38] Abanil v. Ramos, Jr. 399 Phil. 572, 577 (2000).
[39] Tiongco v. Molina, 416 Phil. 676, 683 (2001).
[40] Id.
[41] Lobregat v. Amoranto, 467 Phil. 629, 633 (2004).
[42] Trinidad v. Paclibar, 456 Phil. 727, 731 (2003).
[43] Abalde v. Roque, Jr., 448 Phil. 246, 256 (2003).
[44] Villanueva-Fabella v. Judge Lee, 464 Phil. 548, 569-570 (2004).