Remollo v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Edgar P. Remollo charged respondent Atty. Thelma A. Garcia, Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff, with misfeasance, bias, ignorance of the law, and usurpation of judicial functions. The charge stemmed from respondent's persistent refusal to execute a Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale over forty-three parcels of land sold at public auction in 1986, despite the expiration of the redemption period on October 27, 1989. Complainant alleged this refusal was due to bias in favor of respondent's deceased brother-in-law and his wife, the judgment debtors, who were allegedly making partial payments. This refusal persisted despite a final and executory decision by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP-34649, ordering respondent to execute the deed. Procedural History: The administrative complaint originated from Civil Case No. 5221, an action filed by complainant's parents against respondent's brother-in-law and his wife. A judgment was rendered in favor of the parents, which became final and executory. To satisfy the money judgment, the forty-three parcels of land were sold at public auction, with the heirs of the judgment creditors (the Remollo siblings) as highest bidders. A Sheriff's Certificate of Sale was issued in 1986. Despite the redemption period expiring in 1989, respondent refused to execute the Final Deed of Sale. Instead, she executed a Certificate of Redemption in 1990, which was denied registration. This led to a mandamus case (Civil Case No. 10109) and the initial administrative case (A.M. No. P-92-722), which was provisionally dismissed. When respondent still refused to execute the deed after the Court of Appeals' directive, the complainant refiled the present administrative complaint. The Petition: Complainant sought the maximum penalty against respondent for continually denying them the fruits of their legal victory for nearly a decade despite court orders. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a P5,000.00 fine for respondent's remissness in her ministerial functions. The Supreme Court, however, found respondent's actions to be intentional refusal, constituting gross misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Thelma A. Garcia committed gross misconduct and malfeasance in office by refusing to execute a Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale. Whether respondent's actions were motivated by bias in favor of her relatives, the judgment debtors. Whether respondent's refusal to perform her ministerial duty was justified by ongoing negotiations for redemption beyond the statutory period. Whether the Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale executed by respondent on March 5, 1997, complied with the Court of Appeals' directive.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Thelma A. Garcia guilty of gross misconduct. While she had compulsorily retired, the Court imposed a fine of P30,000.00 to be deducted from her retirement benefits, with the remainder to be released thereafter. The Court found that respondent intentionally refused to perform her ministerial duty to execute the Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale, favoring her relatives, the judgment debtors, and causing undue delay in the enforcement of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross misconduct and malfeasance: The Court held that respondent's refusal to execute the Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale was not a mere oversight but an intentional act. Her duty as Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff to execute the deed upon the expiration of the redemption period was purely ministerial, as mandated by Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (now Section 33, Rule 39, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) and the Manual for Clerks of Court. By refusing to perform this duty, respondent committed malfeasance in office. The Court emphasized that sheriffs are ministerial officers and agents of the law, not of the parties, and cannot exercise discretion in executing judgments. Her actions directly contravened the clear mandate of the law and the specific directives from the Court of Appeals and the trial court. On the issue of bias in favor of relatives: The Court found that respondent's actions demonstrated clear bias in favor of her nephews and nieces, who were the heirs of the judgment debtors. She attempted to justify her inaction by claiming ongoing negotiations for redemption, but she was aware that only some of the judgment creditors' heirs were involved in these negotiations, while others, including the complainant, were demanding the execution of the deed. Furthermore, her execution of a Certificate of Redemption dated June 11, 1990, long after the redemption period expired and falsely stating she had authority from the plaintiff judgment creditors, further evidenced this bias and her attempt to circumvent the legal process. This act of favoring party-litigants who are her kin is prohibited under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. On the justification of ongoing negotiations: The Court rejected respondent's justification that ongoing negotiations for redemption beyond the statutory period excused her inaction. It is well-settled that a sheriff's functions are ministerial and not discretionary. The law provides a specific period for redemption, and any agreement for extension must be between the parties themselves, not a basis for the sheriff to unilaterally withhold the execution of the final deed. Respondent's attempt to grant a redemption beyond the legal period, by executing a Certificate of Redemption and falsely claiming authority, was an act of usurpation of judicial functions and a clear deviation from her ministerial duties. The Court noted that even after the Certificate of Redemption was denied registration, respondent still refused to execute the proper deed, forcing the complainant to file a mandamus case. On compliance with the Court of Appeals' directive: The Court found that the Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale executed by respondent on March 5, 1997, did not fully comply with the Court of Appeals' directive in CA-G.R. SP-34649. The appellate court ordered the execution of the deed within thirty (30) days after the finality of its decision. The decision became final on July 18, 1996. Respondent executed the deed on March 5, 1997, nearly eight months after the deadline, and it contained a rider not ordered by the Court of Appeals, which effectively waived the rights of some Remollo siblings in favor of the judgment debtors. This further demonstrated respondent's disregard for the court's orders and her continued attempt to manipulate the situation.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court acting as Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff has a purely ministerial duty to execute a Sheriff's Final Deed of Sale upon the expiration of the redemption period, and refusal to do so, especially when motivated by personal interest or bias, constitutes gross misconduct and malfeasance in office.