Nique v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Licerio P. Nique filed an affidavit-complaint against Judge Priscilla T. Hernandez, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, and Jose C. Penas, Jr., Deputy Sheriff, for Ignorance of the Law, Partisanship, Dereliction of Duty, and Failure to Account for P1,000.00 deposit. The charges stemmed from the enforcement of a writ of preliminary injunction issued in a certiorari petition filed by Nique. Complainant alleged that Judge Hernandez improperly delegated the writ's implementation to Deputy Sheriff Penas, who failed to restore Nique's possession of a fishpond, rendering the P1,000.00 deposit for sheriff's fees worthless. Nique's attorney-in-fact claimed a P1,000.00 deposit was demanded, and he refused to sign a receipt for fish feed, lime, and equipment, only for the fishpond itself, which allegedly led to the charge of failure to enforce the writ. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Hernandez stated that implementing writs was the Deputy Sheriff's duty and that Penas submitted a Return of Service and an itemized liquidation of the deposit. She also noted a supersedeas bond was filed by the opposing party. Deputy Sheriff Penas maintained he implemented the writ by turning over possession of the fishpond to Nique's overseer, Cesar Canones, and submitted the required Return of Service and Itinerary of Travel to account for the deposit. Nique later filed a Reply, charging falsification for the use of "Car Hire" in the Itinerary of Travel, totaling P400.00, when a PNP vehicle was allegedly used. Respondents submitted rejoinders, with Judge Hernandez reiterating that writ service is the Deputy Sheriff's primary function. Deputy Sheriff Penas explained that the P200.00 for "car hire" on March 3, 1992, was for a private vehicle, and the subsequent P200.00 on March 4, 1992, for "car hire" was for gasoline and repair of the PNP car used. Nique filed a final reply insisting the "car hire" entry did not correspond to gasoline and repair expenses. The case was referred to the Acting Executive Judge for investigation due to factual issues. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal for lack of substantial evidence, as complainant failed to cross-examine respondents and their witnesses, leaving their statements uncontroverted. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the Investigating Judge's findings. The Petition: The complainant sought disciplinary action against the respondents for alleged dereliction of duty, ignorance of the law, partisanship, and falsification in connection with the enforcement of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the delegation of the implementation of the writ of preliminary injunction by the Clerk of Court to the Deputy Sheriff was improper. Whether the Deputy Sheriff failed to properly implement the writ and account for the sheriff's fees. Whether the entry of "Car Hire" in the Itinerary of Travel constituted falsification of a public document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and exonerated both respondents. The Court found that the delegation of the writ's implementation was not improper, the Deputy Sheriff adequately accounted for the sheriff's fees, and the explanation for the "car hire" entry was satisfactory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper delegation: The Court held that as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, Judge Hernandez has the authority to delegate the implementation of writs within her territorial jurisdiction to her Deputy Sheriff. This is in line with the Guidelines and Procedure in the Service and Execution of Court Writs and Processes, which clearly states that Clerks of Court, who are also ex-officio sheriffs, and/or their deputy sheriffs shall serve all court processes and execute all writs within their territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the delegation made by Judge Hernandez to Deputy Sheriff Penas was not improper as claimed by the complainant. The Court emphasized that the service of writs and processes is the primary function of a deputy sheriff. On the issue of failure to implement the writ and account for sheriff's fees: The Court found that Deputy Sheriff Penas was not remiss in his duty. The Investigating Judge noted that even the complainant's overseer, Cesar Canones, admitted being placed in possession of the fishpond by the deputy sheriff. While Canones refused to sign a receipt for the fishpond and equipment, this did not negate the fact that possession was turned over. Furthermore, Deputy Sheriff Penas submitted a Return of Service and an Itinerary of Travel, which itemized the expenses incurred in serving the writ, thereby accounting for the P1,000.00 deposit. The Court reiterated that the collection of legal fees is a delicate function of clerks of court, but in this instance, the deputy sheriff adequately accounted for the amount deposited. The complainant's theory of command responsibility against respondent judge was deemed inapplicable as the deputy sheriff provided a satisfactory accounting. On the issue of falsification for "Car Hire" entry: The Court found Deputy Sheriff Penas' explanation for the "car hire" entry in his Itinerary of Travel to be satisfactory and substantially corroborated. Penas explained that the P200.00 listed as "car hire" on March 4, 1992, was actually spent for the gasoline and repair of the PNP car used in serving the writ. He testified that he considered these expenses as "car hire" because the objective and amount paid were for the same purpose of facilitating his travel. He further clarified that on March 3, 1992, he had hired a private vehicle and paid P200.00, and on the following day, when using a PNP car, he spent another P200.00 for its gasoline and repair. A police escort corroborated that Penas paid P200.00 for the gasoline and repair of the PNP car. The Court found his understanding that car hire and expenses for gasoline and repair of the vehicle used for travel are the same to be a reasonable explanation under the circumstances, especially given the condition of the roads which required such maintenance.
Main Doctrine
The delegation by a Clerk of Court, who is an ex-officio Sheriff, to a Deputy Sheriff of the duty to implement a writ of preliminary injunction is not improper. A Deputy Sheriff's explanation for the use of the term "car hire" to cover gasoline and repair expenses for a PNP vehicle used in serving a writ, when corroborated, is considered satisfactory. Charges against court personnel must be supported by substantial evidence.