Viaje v. Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Redentor S. Viaje, counsel for the plaintiff in an ejectment case, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sheriff Rolando A. Dizon for dishonesty and grave misconduct. Viaje alleged that he gave the respondent P3,000.00 for the implementation of a writ of execution, and the respondent demanded and received an additional P3,000.00 from the plaintiff's daughter for personal service. Further, the respondent allegedly demanded P5,000.00 for confiscating rice from the contested land but later refused to implement the writ before harvest. The Sheriff's Return was only issued on March 16, 2007, despite receiving the writ on October 6, 2006. Procedural History: The case was referred to Executive Judge Cholita B. Santos for investigation, who recommended dismissal of the charges for grave misconduct and dishonesty but found the respondent guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, recommending a one-month suspension. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings and recommendation. The Supreme Court adopted these findings and recommendations. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought to hold Sheriff Dizon administratively liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Rolando A. Dizon is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. Whether respondent Sheriff Rolando A. Dizon is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Sheriff IV Rolando A. Dizon guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and ordered him suspended without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day. The charges for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty were dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dishonesty and grave misconduct: The Court held that the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct against the respondent should be dismissed for lack of merit. This was primarily due to the complainant, Atty. Viaje, failing to attend the hearings scheduled by the Investigating Judge despite notice. In administrative cases, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to establish their allegations by substantial evidence. In the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties prevails. Therefore, without sufficient evidence presented by the complainant, the more serious charges could not be sustained. On the issue of Simple Neglect of Duty: The Court found the respondent guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty based on his non-compliance with the procedural requirements in implementing the writ of execution. Firstly, he failed to follow the procedure regarding expenses, which mandates that the sheriff should prepare and submit to the court for approval a statement of estimated expenses, as provided under Section 10(l), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The respondent's mere suggestion to prepare an estimate was insufficient; he was obliged to follow the prescribed procedure regardless of the plaintiff's representative's opinion. Secondly, he committed a mistake by failing to make a return on the implementation of the writ of execution within the required periodic intervals. The respondent admitted receiving the writ on October 6, 2006, but only made his first and only return on March 16, 2007. This contravened Section 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires periodic reports. Had he complied with these duties, the difficulties encountered in dealing with the parties could have been avoided. These lapses constitute simple neglect of duty.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff found to have failed to follow prescribed procedures in the implementation of a writ of execution, specifically regarding the submission of an expense estimate for court approval and the timely submission of periodic returns, is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, not Grave Misconduct or Dishonesty, if the complainant fails to substantiate the more serious charges.