Gonzales v. Cerenio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rewel P. Cerenio, Sheriff III of the Municipal Trial Court for Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Olongapo City, was charged by Presiding Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales with grave misconduct, insubordination, and dereliction of duty. The complaint originated from a report by the Clerk of Court, Annabelle F. Garcia, which detailed Cerenio's failure to make returns on fifty-four (54) writs of execution, some dating back to 1990. Additionally, Cerenio was accused of failing to serve notices of hearing, resulting in unnecessary postponements, and failing to account for execution proceeds in Civil Case No. 4991 (Lonzame v. Pantig) and Civil Case No. 5059 (Rural Bank of Zambales v. Sotelo). Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter for investigation to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. The Investigating Judge found that out of the fifty-four unaccounted writs, respondent only managed to return twenty-two during the investigation, leaving thirty-two still unaccounted for. The investigation also confirmed that respondent unilaterally deducted sheriff's expenses from collected funds without court approval and failed to prove the return of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) to a defendant. The Investigating Judge recommended a six-month suspension without pay. The Appeal: The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court En Banc for final resolution. The Court reviewed the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA, specifically focusing on the gravity of the malicious nonfeasance regarding the writs, the dishonesty in handling funds, and the respondent's habitual absenteeism as evidenced by his Daily Time Records (DTRs).
Issue(s)
Whether respondent is liable for malicious nonfeasance for failing to make returns on fifty-four writs of execution. Whether respondent committed dishonesty and grave misconduct in the handling of execution proceeds and sheriff's expenses. Whether respondent is liable for habitual absenteeism and irregularities in his Daily Time Records.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Rewel P. Cerenio GUILTY of malicious nonfeasance, dishonesty, committing unauthorized absences, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He was DISMISSED from office, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Malicious Nonfeasance: The Supreme Court held that the failure to make a return on a writ of execution makes a sheriff guilty of malicious nonfeasance. Applying Teresa T. Gonzales La’O & Co., Inc. v. Hatab, the Court emphasized that sheriffs have a ministerial duty to implement writs promptly, as unenforced decisions are 'empty victories.' Under Rule 39, Section 14, a sheriff must report to the court every thirty days on the status of a writ until satisfaction or expiration. In this case, respondent failed to account for fifty-four writs, some pending for over fifteen years, only attempting to return a portion after the investigation commenced. This systemic failure to perform a mandated duty constitutes a grave violation of the Rules of Court and warrants the most severe penalty. On the Issue of Dishonesty and Misconduct: The Court found respondent liable for dishonesty regarding the handling of execution proceeds and sheriff's expenses. Under Rule 141, Section 9, sheriff's expenses must be estimated, approved by the court, and deposited with the Clerk of Court, who then disburses the funds. Respondent bypassed this procedure in Civil Case No. 4991 by directly deducting six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) as expenses from the collected amount. Furthermore, in Civil Case No. 5059, respondent failed to provide any proof that he returned twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) to the defendant, a claim contradicted by a demand letter from the defendant's counsel. These acts constitute dishonesty, which is a grave offense under the Civil Service Rules. On the Issue of Habitual Absenteeism: The Court sustained the OCA's findings that respondent was frequently absent without official or approved leave. Records showed that respondent exceeded the allowable 2.5 days of monthly leave credits provided under the Administrative Code of 1987 on multiple occasions in 2005. Habitual absenteeism without approved leave is a grave offense under the Civil Service Rules as it disrupts the efficient administration of justice. The Court noted that respondent's unauthorized absences, coupled with his failure to serve notices of hearing, resulted in unnecessary delays in court proceedings. Consequently, the cumulative nature of these infractions demonstrated a total lack of integrity and dedication to public service.
Main Doctrine
The duty of a sheriff to execute a writ is ministerial and must be performed with integrity, reasonable dispatch, and due care. Under Rule 39, Section 14, a sheriff must make a return immediately upon satisfaction of the judgment, or provide periodic reports every thirty days if the judgment is unsatisfied, until it is fully satisfied or expires. Failure to comply with these reporting requirements constitutes malicious nonfeasance. Additionally, sheriffs must strictly follow the procedure for expenses under Rule 141, Section 9, which requires court approval and deposit with the Clerk of Court; failure to do so, or failure to account for execution proceeds, constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct.