Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Quilantang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) filed an administrative complaint against Noel V. Quilantang, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 53, Bacolod City, for Grave Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty, Gross Incompetence, Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. RCBC alleged that respondent failed to implement a writ of preliminary attachment issued on February 10, 1998, despite receiving P7,000.00 for expenses, which was neither deposited nor liquidated. Respondent allegedly failed to attach a lot or take possession of a Honda Civic car, leading to the defendants transferring their land to a third party before a money judgment could be satisfied. Procedural History: Respondent, in his Answer, claimed faithful compliance, citing a Notice of Embargo entered in the Register of Deeds' Day Book. He attributed the property transfer to the City Registrar's failure to annotate the notice and stated the car was already sold. He also claimed the P7,000.00 was not deposited as per usual practice. RCBC countered that the notice was not served by respondent but by an unqualified individual, and respondent only brought a copy after the property was transferred. The case was referred to the Executive Judge, RTC-Bacolod City, for investigation. Hearings were conducted, but respondent, though represented by counsel, failed to appear and present evidence. The Investigating Judge found respondent guilty and recommended suspension for six months. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Judge.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Noel V. Quilantang committed Grave Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty, Gross Incompetence, Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; and whether his failure to properly implement the writ of preliminary attachment constituted violations of his duties as Sheriff. Whether respondent's handling of the expenses related to the writ of preliminary attachment constituted violations of his duties as Sheriff.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Noel V. Quilantang guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty amounting to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Inefficiency, Incompetence, Grave Misconduct, and Gross Dishonesty. He was DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. The decision was immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Noel V. Quilantang committed Grave Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty, Gross Incompetence, Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; and whether his failure to properly implement the writ of preliminary attachment constituted violations of his duties as Sheriff: The Court held that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable promptitude to execute it. Section 5, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that the sheriff shall enforce the writ of preliminary attachment without delay and with all reasonable diligence. In this case, the duty to implement the writ of attachment and serve the Notice of Embargo was entrusted to the respondent. Although the Notice of Embargo was served on the Office of the City Registrar of Deeds, it was not respondent himself who served it but a certain "R. Talisa," to whom respondent delegated the task. "R. Talisa" was unqualified and ignorant of the proper procedure for annotation, resulting in the ineffective service and non-annotation of the Notice of Embargo. This gross neglect of duty, in entrusting the service to an unqualified person, allowed the defendants to transfer their property clandestinely to a third person, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant. Respondent compounded his infraction by falsely representing in his Sheriff's Partial Return of Service that he was able to attach the defendants' property, despite knowing the annotation was incomplete and ineffectual. The Court found him liable for serious neglect of duty and gross dishonesty, even without sufficient evidence of collusion. On Whether respondent's handling of the expenses related to the writ of preliminary attachment constituted violations of his duties as Sheriff: The Court noted that respondent admitted receiving P7,000.00 from the complainant for expenses in implementing the writ. However, Section 9, par. (c), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court only authorizes a sheriff's legal fee of P50.00 for executing a writ of attachment, with additional sums requiring specific procedural steps: an estimate of expenses, court approval, deposit with the Clerk of Court, disbursement by the Clerk of Court, and liquidation by the sheriff. Respondent failed to follow these steps and did not explain or give an accounting of the P7,000.00 received. The Court emphasized that any amount received in excess of lawful fees, without observing the prescribed procedure, constitutes unlawful exaction, making the sheriff liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. The Court reiterated that a sheriff cannot unilaterally demand sums of money without observing these steps, as it amounts to dishonesty and extortion. The respondent's failure to present any evidence to exculpate himself during the investigation, despite being notified and represented by counsel, further supported his guilt. His absence without official leave since December 1999 was also noted as indicative of guilt, similar to flight in criminal cases.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who fails to implement a writ of preliminary attachment with reasonable promptitude and diligence, delegates the task to an unqualified individual, and makes false representations in his return, commits grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, and neglect of duty. Furthermore, demanding and receiving sums of money from a party-litigant for expenses without adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court constitutes unlawful exaction and is a ground for dismissal.