Comendador v. Canabe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dioscoro Comendador filed a letter-complaint against Deputy Sheriff Jorge M. Canabe for willful and deliberate failure to serve two (2) writs of execution in Civil Case No. 41. The complainant alleged that Sheriff Canabe received the writs on September 29, 1995, and in December 1995, but failed to serve them on the defendants and make a return of service, as evidenced by a Certification from the Clerk of Court dated February 3, 1999. Procedural History: Respondent Sheriff Canabe was required to file an Answer but failed to do so within the prescribed period. After a second directive, he submitted an Answer, claiming he had informed the plaintiff of the reasons for the delay, that the defendants were difficult to locate or were insolvents, and that the amount given for expenses was insufficient. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found no sufficient evidence of deliberate refusal but noted the failure to submit returns, recommending a fine and a warning. The Court resolved to docket the case as a regular administrative proceeding and required the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings. The complainant manifested willingness, while the respondent failed to show cause for non-compliance, leading the Court to consider his right to present evidence as waived. The Petition: The core of the complaint was the alleged willful and deliberate failure of Sheriff Canabe to serve the writ of execution and make a return of service, which the complainant argued constituted gross negligence and misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Canabe was guilty of willful and deliberate failure to serve the writ of execution. Whether respondent Sheriff Canabe was guilty of gross negligence and gross misconduct for failing to submit his returns of service within the prescribed period. Whether the respondent complied with the rules regarding sheriff's expenses for the service of writs.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Sheriff Jorge M. Canabe guilty of gross negligence and gross misconduct in the performance of his duties. He was imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The Court found no sufficient evidence that the respondent deliberately refused to serve the writs of execution. However, his failure to submit his returns within the period required by Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and his failure to comply with the rules on securing approval for sheriff's expenses, constituted gross negligence and gross misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of willful and deliberate failure to serve the writ of execution: The Court agreed with the OCA that there was no sufficient evidence to support the complainant's charge that the respondent deliberately refused to serve the writs of execution. The mere absence of a sheriff's return or report would not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the respondent willfully and with malice refused to serve the said writs. Substantial evidence is the quantum of proof required in administrative cases, and this was not sufficiently evident in this aspect of the charge. On the failure to submit returns of service: Despite the lack of evidence for deliberate refusal, the Court found the respondent liable for neglect in the performance of his duty. Administrative Circular No. 12, Section 4, and Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court mandate that sheriffs submit a report to the judge concerned on the action taken on all writs and processes assigned to them within ten (10) days from receipt. The Clerk of Court certified that as of February 3, 1997, no returns were submitted for writs issued on September 29, 1995, and December 1995, meaning more than one year had lapsed. This failure to submit returns within the prescribed period constitutes neglect in the performance of duty, as reiterated in San Jose vs. Centeno. The respondent's actuations gave the perception of deliberate refusal, stemming from his failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement. Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice and are expected to act with high standards, above suspicion, as emphasized in Llamado v. Ravelo and Vda. De Tisado v. Tablizo. The Court cannot countenance acts or omissions that diminish faith in the judiciary. The failure to execute judgments promptly due to inefficiency or negligence renders decisions inutile and prejudices parties, as highlighted in Jumio v. Egay-Eviota and Portes v. Tepace. Considering the gross negligence and gross misconduct, and to stress the gravity of the offense, the Court increased the fine recommended by the OCA from P1,000.00 to P10,000.00, to be deducted from the respondent's retirement benefits. The respondent had compulsorily retired on September 2, 2002. On compliance with rules regarding sheriff's expenses: The Court noted that the respondent claimed he was given only P200.00 for transportation expenses to serve a writ on a defendant residing 115 kilometers away. However, Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court requires that the party requesting the process shall pay the sheriff's expenses, including kilometrage, in an amount estimated by the sheriff and subject to the approval of the court. There was no indication that the respondent complied with this rule by securing the court's approval for the estimated expenses. The acceptance of cash without written approval and a corresponding receipt constitutes gross misconduct. The sheriff is obliged to secure the approval of the issuing court for estimated expenses and fees for the implementation of a writ of execution, as stated in Vda. De Gillego v. Roxas.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to submit a return of service within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court constitutes gross negligence and gross misconduct, even if there is insufficient evidence of deliberate refusal to serve the writ.