Leon-Dela Cruz v. Recacho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Saula de Leon-dela Cruz filed a verified letter-complaint against Fernando P. Recacho (Cash Clerk) and Roderick D. Abaigar (Deputy Sheriff) of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 79, Las Piñas City. The complainant, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6340, alleged that after a decision in her favor and a writ of execution, Recacho hid, withheld, and refused to furnish her copies of three court orders: Order dated September 23, 2003 granting motion for execution; Writ of Execution dated October 23, 2003; and Demolition Order dated December 1, 2004. Abaigar was accused of unjustifiably delaying the execution of the Demolition Order and soliciting money amounting to ₱50,000.00, in connivance with Deputy Chief of Police Alberto Romero, as a condition for implementing the order. In a supplemental complaint, the complainant alleged giving Abaigar ₱14,000.00 for demolition crew and barangay officers without a receipt, and later ₱10,000.00 to Abaigar and ₱5,000.00 to Col. Romero, also without receipts, for the demolition of shanties. Abaigar allegedly threatened to leave the premises without police back-up if money was not provided. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City, for investigation. The Investigating Judge found both respondents guilty of grave misconduct. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted the finding of grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel against Abaigar, recommending dismissal. For Recacho, the OCA found him guilty of neglect of duty for failure to act promptly on letters and requests, recommending a fine of ₱2,000.00. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Fernando P. Recacho and Roderick D. Abaigar committed acts constituting Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, and Dereliction of Duty; specifically, whether Roderick D. Abaigar is guilty of grave misconduct for delaying the execution of a demolition order and demanding money from the complainant. Whether Fernando P. Recacho is guilty of neglect of duty for failing to promptly furnish court orders and writs to the complainant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Roderick D. Abaigar guilty of grave misconduct and suspended him for one year without pay. Fernando P. Recacho was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined ₱2,000.00. The Court warned respondents that repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge against Roderick D. Abaigar: The Court found Abaigar guilty of grave misconduct. Sheriffs are crucial in the execution of judgments, and delays render them inutile and prejudice parties. Abaigar failed to promptly act on the demolition writ, making a partial return only after almost four months. The Court emphasized that demanding money from a complainant for the execution of a writ of demolition, regardless of the amount, is a clear violation of the Rules. Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court mandates that expenses for execution be estimated by the sheriff, approved by the court, deposited with the clerk of court, and disbursed by the clerk, subject to liquidation. Abaigar deviated from these rules by demanding money directly from the complainant. The Court cited Apuyan, Jr. v. Sta. Isabel which held that any amount received by a sheriff in excess of lawful fees is an unlawful exaction, rendering the sheriff liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. While dismissal was recommended by the OCA, the Court considered Abaigar a first-time offender and imposed a penalty of suspension for one year without pay, tempering the harshness of the judgment with mercy. On the charge against Fernando P. Recacho: The Court found Recacho guilty of simple neglect of duty. Recacho, in charge of court records, admitted that the complainant's case record was misplaced due to renovation from June to December 2003, and was only found in July 2004. This resulted in a delay of almost ten months in furnishing the complainant with copies of court orders and the writ of execution. The Court rejected Recacho's defense of heavy workload and misplacement of records, stating that it was his duty to devise ways to safeguard court records, especially during renovation. His indifference eroded public faith in the judiciary. Simple neglect of duty is defined as a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. For this offense, a fine of ₱2,000.00 was deemed just and reasonable, consistent with Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
Main Doctrine
Court personnel, particularly sheriffs, are mandated to perform their duties promptly and with diligence. Demanding or receiving money for the execution of a writ, outside of lawful fees, constitutes grave misconduct. Negligence in handling court records, leading to delays, constitutes simple neglect of duty.