Sy v. Binasing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 75 of Marikina rendered a judgment in Civil Case No. 03-7464 in favor of complainant Santos Sy against Ang Ping. The decision became final and executory, and a Writ of Execution was issued on June 21, 2004. The writ was referred to respondent Officer-in-Charge/Sheriff Ibrahim T. Binasing for implementation. Procedural History: Complainant's counsel sent letters on September 22, 2004, and December 6, 2004, reiterating the request for implementation. Despite receipt of the letters and required expenses, respondent failed to implement the writ. A warning was issued on February 28, 2005, and reiterated on July 26, 2005. Respondent, by letter of August 15, 2005, requested the complainant's bank account number and, by letter of November 15, 2005, stated the money judgment was not yet in his hands, attributing the delay to numerous requests from different courts of Maguindanao for implementation of writs of demolition, and that he was the only sheriff assigned. The Petition: An administrative case for neglect of duty was filed on February 3, 2006, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Respondent asserted the complaint was moot as he had implemented the writ and deposited the money judgment on December 29, 2005, attaching complainant's Affidavit of Desistance dated February 20, 2006. The OCA found respondent "grossly negligent" and recommended a fine of P5,000 and a stern warning. The Court directed parties to manifest if they were willing to submit the case on the existing records. Respondent reiterated his information about writ implementation and the affidavit of desistance.
Issue(s)
Whether an affidavit of desistance by a complainant in an administrative case against a member of the judiciary renders the complaint moot. Whether respondent Sheriff Ibrahim T. Binasing was guilty of neglect of duty.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Ibrahim T. Binasing guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed a fine equivalent to his three months' salary, with a warning against repetition of the offense. The Court held that an affidavit of desistance does not render the complaint moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the effect of an Affidavit of Desistance: The Court held that an affidavit of desistance by a complainant in an administrative case against a member of the judiciary does not divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to investigate the matters alleged in the complaint or otherwise to wield its disciplinary authority. The Court emphasized its inherent interest in the conduct and behavior of its officials and employees and in ensuring the prompt delivery of justice to the people. Its efforts in that direction cannot be frustrated by any private arrangement of the parties, nor can the disciplinary power of the Court be made to depend on a complainant's whims. To rule otherwise would undermine the discipline of court officials and personnel. On the finding of neglect of duty: The Court found respondent's liability for neglect of duty, specifically his failure to implement the writ of execution for more than one year and six months, to be clearly indubitable. The facts showed a prolonged and unjustified delay in the performance of his official duty. The respondent's explanation regarding numerous requests from other courts and being the sole sheriff was not sufficient to absolve him from liability for such an extended period of inaction. The Court noted that while the OCA recommended a fine of P5,000, it adjusted the penalty considering that respondent had not been previously administratively faulted. Instead of suspension, a fine equivalent to three months' salary was imposed to avoid hampering the performance of his duties.
Main Doctrine
An affidavit of desistance by a complainant in an administrative case against a member of the judiciary does not divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to investigate the matters alleged in the complaint or otherwise to wield its disciplinary authority, as the Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of its officials and employees and in ensuring the prompt delivery of justice.