A.M. No. R-251-P - JUNE 1987 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. R-251-PJune 30, 1987Agapito Bareno vs. Ignacio Cabauatan A.M. No. 2538June 30, 1987Amante E. Sanglay vs. Atty. Antonio Quirino G.R. No. L-26344June 30, 1987Hawaiian-Phil. Company vs. Asociacion De Hacenderos Silay-Saravia, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-30597June 30, 1987Guillermo Azcona vs. Jose Jamandre G.R. No. L-38042June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Alcantara G.R. No. L-43674June 30, 1987Ysmael Maritime Corporation vs. Celso Avelino G.R. No. L-47369June 30, 1987Joseph Cochingyan, Jr. vs. R & B Surety and Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-48237 & L-49023June 30, 1987Madrigal & Company, Inc. vs. Ronaldo B. Zamora G.R. No. L-48627June 30, 1987Fermin Z. Caram, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48955June 30, 1987Bernardo Busuego vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-50997, L-48679 & L-48758June 30, 1987Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. J. Jose C. De Guzman G.R. No. L-51216June 30, 1987Agaton T. Landicho vs. Ricardo P. Tensuan G.R. No. L-51841June 30, 1987Remigio Quiqui vs. Alejandro R. Boncaros G.R. No. L-52352-57June 30, 1987Valentino G. Castillo vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-53373June 30, 1987Mario Fl. Crespo vs. Leodegario L. Mogul G.R. No. L-53961June 30, 1987National Development Company vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-55354June 30, 1987Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bernardo P. Pardo G.R. No. L-55480June 30, 1987Pacifica Millare vs. Harold M. Hernando G.R. No. L-56283June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Ornoza G.R. No. L-61932June 30, 1987Enrique P. Syquia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-64898June 30, 1987Nicolas Bueno, Jr. vs. Pat. Manolo Reyes G.R. No. L-65718June 30, 1987National Development Comp. vs. Wilfredo Hervilla G.R. No. L-65889June 30, 1987Petra Duenas vs. Pelagio S. Mandi, et al. G.R. No. L-67881June 30, 1987Pilipinas Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-68624June 30, 1987Bartolome Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-69294June 30, 1987Zacarias Cometa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-69854June 30, 1987Milagros Rosauro vs. Mayor Pablo Cuneta G.R. Nos. L-51065-72June 30, 1987Arturo A. Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-71462June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Cruz, Sr. G.R. No. L-70623June 30, 1987St. Dominic Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-70639June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Dollantes, et al. G.R. No. L-71510June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Teodorico Silfavan G.R. No. L-71917June 30, 1987Belisle Investment & Finance Company, Inc. vs. State Investment House, Inc. G.R. No. L-72354June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Peña, Jr. G.R. No. L-72645June 30, 1987Luzon Surety Company, Inc., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-73893June 30, 1987Margarita Suria vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-74953June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Legaspi G.R. No. L-74957June 30, 1987Roberto Vallarta vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75029June 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Siegfred Fajardo G.R. No. L-75287June 30, 1987House International Building Tenants Asso., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-76145June 30, 1987Cathay Insurance Company vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-77148June 30, 1987Mariano Lacson vs. J. Amelia K. Del Rosario G.R. No. L-77154June 30, 1987Jesus Del Rosario vs. Jaime Hamoy G.R. Nos. L-59495-97June 26, 1987Gregorio Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-45722June 23, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Leoncio Jusep G.R. No. L-48957June 23, 1987Ernesto Andres vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-69401June 23, 1987Rizal Alih vs. Delfin C. Castro G.R. No. L-48642June 22, 1987The People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Salcedo, et al. G.R. No. L-57322June 22, 1987Norman Noda vs. Gregoria Cruz-Arnaldo G.R. No. L-75197June 22, 1987E. Razon, Inc. vs. Philippine Ports Authority, et al. G.R. No. L-38188June 18, 1987Gregorio Petilla vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-41008June 18, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Pecato G.R. No. L-47489June 18, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Eulogio Manaay G.R. No. L-48140June 18, 1987Miguel B. Carag vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-49749June 18, 1987Andrea Sangalang vs. Rev. Balbino Caparas G.R. No. L-55982June 18, 1987Irene P. Mariano vs. Francisco M. Bautista G.R. No. L-66866June 18, 1987Republic of the Philippines vs. Minda De Porkan G.R. No. L-66965June 18, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio B. Ferrera G.R. No. L-67302June 18, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Torrefranca, et al. G.R. No. L-69651June 18, 1987Eduardo S. Solante, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-73490June 18, 1987United States Lines, Inc., vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. Nos. L-53001-56June 18, 1987Erasmo Gabison vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-71365June 18, 1987Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-72936June 18, 1987The People of the Philippines vs. Rolando M. Picardal G.R. No. L-73662June 18, 1987MAI Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-75697June 18, 1987Valentin Tio. vs. Videogram Regulatory Board, et al. G.R. No. L-46998June 17, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Felomino Garciano G.R. No. L-66574June 17, 1987Anselma Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-74145June 17, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Zosimo Crisologo G.R. No. L-55526June 15, 1987Filoil Refinery Corporation vs. Rafael T. Mendoza G.R. No. L-48241June 11, 1987Republic of the Philippines vs. Jose P. Arro G.R. No. L-78582June 10, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Dante D. De La Cruz The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Agapito Bareno vs. Ignacio CabauatanAmante E. Sanglay vs. Atty. Antonio QuirinoHawaiian-Phil. Company vs. Asociacion De Hacenderos Silay-Saravia, Inc., et al.Guillermo Azcona vs. Jose JamandrePeople of the Philippines vs. Pedro AlcantaraYsmael Maritime Corporation vs. Celso AvelinoJoseph Cochingyan, Jr. vs. R & B Surety and Insurance Company, Inc.,Madrigal & Company, Inc. vs. Ronaldo B. ZamoraFermin Z. Caram, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsBernardo Busuego vs. Court of AppealsSummit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. J. Jose C. De GuzmanAgaton T. Landicho vs. Ricardo P. TensuanRemigio Quiqui vs. Alejandro R. BoncarosValentino G. Castillo vs. SandiganbayanMario Fl. Crespo vs. Leodegario L. MogulNational Development Company vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueBanco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bernardo P. PardoPacifica Millare vs. Harold M. HernandoPeople of the Philippines vs. Ruben OrnozaEnrique P. Syquia vs. Court of AppealsNicolas Bueno, Jr. vs. Pat. Manolo ReyesNational Development Comp. vs. Wilfredo HervillaPetra Duenas vs. Pelagio S. Mandi, et al.Pilipinas Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Bartolome Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtZacarias Cometa vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtMilagros Rosauro vs. Mayor Pablo CunetaArturo A. Mejorada vs. SandiganbayanPeople of the Philippines vs. Alberto Cruz, Sr.St. Dominic Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Dollantes, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Teodorico SilfavanBelisle Investment & Finance Company, Inc. vs. State Investment House, Inc.People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Peña, Jr.Luzon Surety Company, Inc., vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtMargarita Suria vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio LegaspiRoberto Vallarta vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Siegfred FajardoHouse International Building Tenants Asso., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtCathay Insurance Company vs. Court of AppealsMariano Lacson vs. J. Amelia K. Del RosarioJesus Del Rosario vs. Jaime HamoyGregorio Gonzales vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Leoncio JusepErnesto Andres vs. Court of AppealsRizal Alih vs. Delfin C. CastroThe People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Salcedo, et al.Norman Noda vs. Gregoria Cruz-ArnaldoE. Razon, Inc. vs. Philippine Ports Authority, et al. Gregorio Petilla vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Arturo PecatoPeople of the Philippines vs. Eulogio ManaayMiguel B. Carag vs. Court of AppealsAndrea Sangalang vs. Rev. Balbino CaparasIrene P. Mariano vs. Francisco M. BautistaRepublic of the Philippines vs. Minda De PorkanPeople of the Philippines vs. Arsenio B. FerreraPeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio Torrefranca, et al.Eduardo S. Solante, et al. vs. SandiganbayanUnited States Lines, Inc., vs. Commissioner of CustomsErasmo Gabison vs. SandiganbayanPaper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtThe People of the Philippines vs. Rolando M. PicardalMAI Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionValentin Tio. vs. Videogram Regulatory Board, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Felomino GarcianoAnselma Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Zosimo CrisologoFiloil Refinery Corporation vs. Rafael T. MendozaRepublic of the Philippines vs. Jose P. ArroPeople of the Philippines vs. Dante D. De La CruzThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Complainant Bareno alleges that he was one of the defendants in a civil case adjudged to pay the plaintiffs therein; that in his desire to redeem his properties then being auctioned by respondent; he deposited the amount of eleven thousand five hundred pesos (P11,500.00) with respondent; that the redemption did not take place because he bought the land directly from the buyer at the auction sale; that respondent only returned the amount of ten thousand pesos, leaving a balance of one thousand five hundred pesos; that because respondent failed to return the remaining balance, complainant filed a complaint against respondent with RTC Judge Constantino Consigns, Branch 22 at Cabagan, Isabela; that Judge Consigna required respondent to comment on the complaint but no comment thereon was submitted. Complainant decries the willful failure' of respondent to remit the balance of P1,500.00 deposit.

On the other hand, complainant Judge Principe assails the failure of respondent to serve and render a return of service of the following: (1) complaint and summons issued in Civil Case No. 303 on May 3, 1983; (2) complaint and summons issued in Civil Case No. 316 (Buraga vs. Pintucan) on December 13,1983; and (3) writ of execution issued in Criminal Case No. 2128 (People vs. Juanito Maguire) on December 6, 1984. On December 6, 1984, complainant reported such failure to RTC Judge Consigns. On December 10, 1984, Judge Consigna required respondent to comment on the complaint of complainant-Judge. However, respondent did not make any comment/explanation thereon. Complainant claims that respondent's negligence and misconduct has prejudiced the party litigants of his court.

In a 1st Indorsement dated April 9, 1985, this Office referred the above complaints to respondent through RTC Judge Constantino B. Consigna and required respondent to answer the same within ten (10) days.

In view of respondent' failure to submit an answer, this office required him anew to file the same within three (3) days from notice.

Finally, on April 2, 1986, RTC Judge Consigna in a 3rd Indorsement submitted the answer of respondent with the recommendation that the complaints herein be dismissed "in view of (respondent's) satisfactory explanation."

In his answer to the complaint of Judge Principe, respondent alleges that the returns of service of the court processes and writ of the cases mentioned therein were mixed with the other court papers which were "hurriedly transferred to other sections in the rooms" occasioned by the past typhoons and strong rains; that after a "lengthy effort" said returns were found and finally submitted to complainant-Judge.

Anent the complaint of Mr. Bareno, respondent submitted an affidavit executed by Mr. Bareno dated May 14, 1985. Said affidavit states that complainant Bareno found out that on October 10, 1984, the amount of P1,500.00 was given by respondent to his nephew; that his nephew belatedly delivered said amount to complainant after the latter had mailed his complaint against respondent; and that in view of this development, complainant is no longer interested in pursuing this case.

Respondent prays "that these complaints against (him) docketed as AM No. 251-P be dismissed with the promise that the same will not be repeated (sic)."

In a reply to the aforesaid answer, complainant Judge claims that respondent took more than two (2) years to submit the returns of service. He branded the following reasons given by respondent for the delayed submission of the returns as "self- serving, flimsy, without probative value" and untrue: (1) Civil Case No. 303 — summons unserved because defendants are now in Manila and plaintiff advised respondent to await defendants' return (Annex "B", p. 30, rollo); (2) writ of execution in Criminal Case No. 2128 — respondent served writ of execution on September 18, 1984. As defendant (accused) refused to pay, respondent sold the side car of defendant's (accused's) motorcycle at public auction in the amount of P950.00. Said amount was received by complainants in the criminal case (Annex "C", p. 31, rollo).

Complainant-Judge avers that there was no sworn statement of plaintiff in Civil Case No. 303 to support respondent's allegation and that granting the same to be true, it was still the duty of respondent to report the failure of service to the court in order not to delay the administration of justice. Complainant likewise, refutes the claim of respondent in Criminal Case No. 2128 by submitting affidavits of complainants or representatives of complainants in the criminal case to the effect that they did not receive a single centavo from respondent.

In conclusion, complainant disagrees with the favorable recommendation of Judge Consigns. He termed such indorsement as improper and unethical" considering that this case might be referred to Judge Consigna for investigation and the premature evaluation might be construed as partiality on Judge Consigna's part. He prays that respondent be dismissed from the service.

After a careful review of the pleadings, the undersigned finds respondent guilty of the charges of negligence and misconduct in office.

Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs have an important role to play in the administration of justice. InTo vs. Dictor,(110 SCRA 398, 400 [1981]), this Court held: "It is well to remind Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs are officers of the court, and considered agents of the law. They form an integral part of the administration of justice because they are called upon to serve court writs, execute all processes, and carry into effect the orders of the Court, as such, they should discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence."

In the case at bar, the actuations of respondent fall short of the standard set by this court. The explanation he offered for the late filing of the returns was indeed flimsy and unbelievable. The records show that in 1984, RTC Judge Consigna referred complainants' grievances to respondent for comment/explanation. Respondent ignored the directive. Even this Court has not been spared. On April 9, 1985, this Office required respondent to answer the herein complaints within ten (10) days from notice. He failed to answer within the required period. On August 9, 1985, this office required respondent anew to file his answer within three (3) days from notice. Again, he failed to do so. It was only on April 2, 1986 that respondent submitted his answer. These circumstances show respondent's obvious disregard of the Court's directives and procedure.

Respondent took more than two years to file the returns mentioned in the complainants of Judge Principe. The delay could have been avoided had respondent displayed more diligence and zeal in performing his duty. He bided his time which manifested a complete lack of understanding of his responsibility as an officer of the Court. His non-feasance has resulted in the delay in the administration of justice.

In a similar case, (Amolador vs. Felicidario, 84 SCRA 267, 273) for failure of respondent sheriff to file the return of the writ of execution within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court, this Court imposed a fine equivalent to respondent sheriff's basic salary for a Period of three months to be paid within fifteen (15) days from finality of the decision, It was stated therein that a deputy sheriff as an officer of the court whose duties form an integrated part of the administration of justice, may be properly punished, short of dismissal or suspension from office, by this tribunal which exercises administrative supervision over the judicial branch of the government, for an action committed in violation of the Rules of Court and which impedes and detracts from a fair and just administration of justice.

Anent the return of the writ of execution in Criminal Case No. 2128, there are affidavits of the offended parties therein which refute respondent's statement.ℒαwρhi৷Considering that conflicting statements are made by the offended parties and respondent and that the facts on the record are not sufficient to determine the culpability of respondent, the undersigned submits that an investigation should be ordered by this Court to give the parties ample opportunity to present proof of their respective claims.

This Court in Mangaron vs. Bagano (85 SCRA 1, 7 [1978]), has held that a complaint may be dismissed where complainant manifests lack of interest in the prosecution of the charges. The undersigned submits that this rule does not apply in the complaint of Mr. Bareno. Respondent's alleged payment of P1,500.00 to complainant Bareno's nephew is highly irregular since he was not the proper party to receive the same. Respondent did not even attach any receipt of the alleged payment. Further, the receipt which respondent issued to complainant for P10,000.00 carried an undertaking that respondent will deliver the balance of P1,500.00 on September 10, 1984. No payment was made on that date. It was only on October 10, 1984 that such payment was allegedly made and the same was given not to complainant, but to his nephew. If payment was actually made, it could have been a natural reaction for respondent to correct the impression of complainant Bareno. Yet, he waited until this complaint was filed and for almost a year to inform this Court of said payment. This conduct does not speak wen of respondent. It creates a suspicion of respondent's attempt to cover-up his negligence. As an officer of the Court, respondent is required to perform the duties of his office honestly and faithfully and his conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized with propriety but most of all, must be above suspicion.

In view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends: (a) that a fine equivalent to respondent's basic salary for a period of three (3) months to be paid within fifteen (15) days from finality of the decision, be imposed upon respondent for the unreasonable delay in filing the returns of the summons and the writ of execution in violation of Rule 39, Section 11 of the Rules of Court in line with the ruling inAmolador vs. Felicidario, supra; and (b) that the controversy over the alleged non-payment to the offended parties of the amount of P950.00 realized from the sale of the side car of a motorcycle at public auction pursuant to the writ of execution in Criminal Case No. 2128 (People vs. Juanito Maguire) be referred to the Regional Trial Court Judge of Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 18, for investigation, report and recommendation.