Bernadez v. Montejar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rosemary P. Bernadez, acting as attorney-in-fact for her father, mortgaged a parcel of land and received a notice from respondent Ricky V. Montejar, a process server, regarding the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage and a scheduled auction sale. Complainant filed an administrative complaint alleging violation of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft), Usurpation of Authority, Gross Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, citing lack of publication of the notice and respondent's lack of authority as he was only a process server. Respondent claimed he was authorized by an Office Order to perform sheriff duties and that the loan amount exempted the foreclosure from publication requirements under the Rural Banks Act of 1992. The auction sale did not proceed as the loan was paid. Complainant filed another complaint alleging Grave Dishonesty, Violation of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct), Usurpation of Judicial Function, and Gross Misbehavior, based on respondent allegedly receiving P100.00 as sheriff's fee for service of summons prior to the Office Order authorizing him to act as sheriff. A prior complaint was also filed for violation of franking privileges under P.D. No. 26. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P1,000.00 for violating the National Accounting and Auditing Manual and P.D. No. 26. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought to hold respondent accountable for alleged violations of anti-graft laws, usurpation of authority, misconduct, and dishonesty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Ricky V. Montejar violated Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Usurpation of Authority, Gross Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in relation to the extrajudicial foreclosure. Whether respondent violated Grave Dishonesty, R.A. No. 6713, Usurpation of Judicial Function, and Gross Misbehavior in relation to the receipt of sheriff's fees. Whether respondent violated P.D. No. 26 regarding franking privileges.
Ruling
The Court found respondent liable for violating Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual and Presidential Decree No. 26. Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00. A repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, Usurpation of Authority, Gross Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: The Court found the complainant's contention regarding the lack of publication to be untenable, citing Section 6, paragraph 3 of R.A. 7353 (Rural Banks Act of 1992), which exempts foreclosures from publication requirements when the loan amount, excluding interests, does not exceed P100,000.00. Furthermore, the Court noted that respondent appeared to be duly authorized to perform the functions of a sheriff by the Presiding Judge through an Office Order. Therefore, the allegations related to the extrajudicial foreclosure itself were dismissed. On the alleged violation of Grave Dishonesty, R.A. No. 6713, Usurpation of Judicial Function, and Gross Misbehavior concerning sheriff's fees: The Court found respondent liable for issuing a handwritten receipt for sheriff's fees in Civil Case No. 98-004-L. This violated Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual, which mandates the issuance of an official receipt for any payment received by a collecting officer. The handwritten receipt was deemed insufficient acknowledgment of payment. On the alleged violation of P.D. No. 26 regarding franking privileges: The Court found respondent liable for violating Presidential Decree No. 26 by sending his counter-affidavit to the complainant enclosed in an envelope bearing "Free Postage." The Court clarified that the franking privilege under P.D. 26 is exclusively for judges and is limited to official communications directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings. Respondent's use of the privilege for his counter-affidavit was an unauthorized use.
Main Doctrine
A court employee who issues a handwritten receipt for sheriff's fees instead of an official receipt, and who violates franking privileges by using official envelopes for personal correspondence, is liable for violations of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual and Presidential Decree No. 26, respectively.