Beltran v. Monteroso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 2001, the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) decided Civil Case Nos. 150 & 153 in favor of plaintiff Pag-asa G. Beltran. On October 22, 2003, writs of execution were issued to satisfy the monetary awards totaling P148,932.89. On February 1, 2006, Beltran filed a complaint against Sheriff IV Romeo Monteroso for dereliction of duty and grave misconduct, alleging dishonesty and unlawful collection of money. Complainant averred that respondent did not implement the writs in consideration of P1,000.00 received from defendant Josephine Reyes. Procedural History: Respondent admitted collecting P900.00 without a receipt for the service of the writs. The investigation established that respondent received the writs on October 22, 2003, but failed to submit a report despite orders from the MCTC and the Clerk of Court of the RTC. He finally submitted his report on August 28, 2007, after the investigation was deemed terminated. Executive Judge Dax G. Xenos found respondent guilty of neglect of duty, misconduct, and unlawful collection of money. The OCA recommended that respondent be found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for delayed implementation and Abuse of Authority for violating rules on estimating expenses and submitting reports, recommending a fine equivalent to six months' salary. The Petition: The complainant filed a complaint against the respondent sheriff for dereliction of duty and grave misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Romeo Monteroso is guilty of dereliction of duty and grave misconduct. Whether respondent committed dishonesty and unlawful collection of money. Whether respondent failed to implement the writs of execution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Sheriff IV Romeo Monteroso administratively liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He was suspended from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) year, with a stern warning that another transgression of a similar nature will merit dismissal from the service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dereliction of duty and grave misconduct: The Court found that respondent persistently disregarded basic rules on execution. He violated Section 9, Rule 141 (now Section 10, Rule 141) for not preparing an estimate of expenses approved by the MCTC and Section 14, Rule 39 for failing to submit a timely return of the proceedings. He also failed to render an accounting of expenses and an inventory of properties levied upon, and failed to completely enforce the writs. The Court reiterated that lapses in procedure coupled with unlawful exaction of unauthorized fees are equivalent to grave misconduct and dishonesty. The sheriff's conduct of unilaterally demanding sums of money without court approval and without accounting constitutes dishonesty and extortion, threatening the administration of justice. On the issue of dishonesty and unlawful collection of money: The respondent admitted collecting P900.00 without a receipt for the service of the writs. This act, along with the failure to implement the writs and the claim that defendants had no other properties to be levied upon (which was deemed self-serving), supports the finding of dishonesty and unlawful collection. The Court noted that in previous cases, similar conduct by sheriffs was declared as grave misconduct and dishonesty. On the issue of failure to implement the writs of execution: The Court found that only a dining set and a VHS player were levied upon since the respondent received the writs on October 22, 2003. The respondent's excuse that defendants had no other properties was not accepted, especially since he failed to update the lower court on the progress of the proceedings. When a writ is placed in a sheriff's hands, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it. The Court found that respondent failed to completely enforce the writs.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's failure to implement writs of execution, coupled with unlawful exaction of unauthorized fees and failure to submit timely reports and accounting, constitutes grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal, though mitigating circumstances may lead to a lesser penalty.