Arellano v. Flojo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Teresita P. Arellano, defendant in Civil Case No. 11-1041, filed a complaint against Judge Napoleon R. Flojo, Clerk of Court Felino Bangalan, Branch Clerk of Court Herminio del Castillo, and Deputy Sheriff Luciano Jove. The complaint alleged neglect of duty, misconduct, bias, and partiality. Specifically, Judge Flojo was accused of irregularly issuing an order for a writ of attachment without legal basis. Clerk of Court Bangalan was accused of issuing the writ without the required P100,000.00 attachment bond and deliberately delaying the service of summons. Branch Clerk of Court del Castillo was accused of delaying the service of summons. Deputy Sheriff Jove was accused of seizing a vehicle not owned by the defendant and entrusting its custody to sheriff guards, leading to its cannibalization. Procedural History: The complaint against Herminio del Castillo was dismissed for lack of merit. The complaint against Judge Napoleon R. Flojo was also dismissed as it reiterated charges previously dismissed by the Court en banc. The case was referred to Justice Ramon A. Barcelona for investigation regarding respondents Bangalan and Jove. Justice Barcelona found Judge Bangalan guilty of negligence for issuing the writ of attachment without an acceptable bond and for causing its implementation before summons was served. He found Sheriff Jove liable for failing to verify ownership of the attached property and for surrendering its custody to guards instead of keeping it personally. Justice Barcelona recommended suspension for one month without pay for both. The Petition: The Supreme Court, considering the findings of Justice Barcelona and the Office of the Court Administrator, modified the recommended penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Felino Bangalan and Luciano Jove were guilty of neglect of duty and misconduct in connection with Civil Case No. 11-1041; specifically, the liability of Felino Bangalan and Luciano Jove. Whether the penalties recommended by the investigating Justice were appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on each respondent, Felino Bangalan and Luciano Jove, with a severe warning against repetition of similar acts. The Court found them remiss in the performance of their duties but deemed a fine more commensurate than suspension.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of Felino Bangalan and Luciano Jove: The Court affirmed the findings that respondent Bangalan, then Clerk of Court III, was guilty of negligence for issuing the writ of attachment despite the plaintiffs failing to post the required attachment bond and for implementing the writ before summons had been issued and served. The Court found respondent Sheriff Jove liable for seizing a vehicle not owned by the defendant, failing to exercise due prudence by not verifying ownership. While Jove was faulted for the wrongful levy, the Court sustained his action of entrusting the custody of the truck to sheriff guards. The liability for the cannibalization of the truck was placed on the sheriff guards. On the penalty: The Supreme Court found a fine of P5,000.00 each to be the commensurate penalty for the irregularities committed, with a severe warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Main Doctrine
Clerks of Court and Sheriffs are administratively liable for irregularities in the issuance and implementation of writs, including failure to post the required bond and wrongful seizure of property. While a fine may be imposed, a repetition of such acts warrants more severe penalties.