Domingo v. Malana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jennifer B. Domingo charged respondents Sheriff Silvino R. Malana, Jr. and Cipriano B. Verbo, Jr. for failure to fully implement a writ of demolition. The writ was referred to them in November 2000. Respondents informed Domingo that implementation would be delayed due to a full schedule and a policy against demolitions in December, rescheduling for January 24, 2001. Domingo provided a service vehicle. Upon arrival, a defendant, Willie de Guzman, requested a three-day extension, which Domingo refused. The demolition commenced but was discontinued by respondent Verbo, leaving de Guzman's house undemolished. Verbo allegedly promised to continue on January 27, 2001, despite Domingo's objection. When followed up, respondents claimed prior commitments and rescheduled for March 2001. Procedural History: The letter-complaint was referred to respondents for comment. The case was later referred to Judge Jimmy Henry Luczon, Jr. for investigation. Initially, the Investigating Judge recommended dismissal, but upon further order, submitted a supplemental report finding respondents remiss in their duties and recommending a fine of ₱3,000 each. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings of delay but modified the penalty, recommending suspension for respondent Malana and reprimand for respondent Verbo. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondents with failure to fully implement the writ of demolition.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents were guilty of delay in the performance of their duty as sheriffs. Whether the penalty recommended by the OCA was appropriate.
Ruling
The Court found respondents guilty of delay in the performance of their duty. Respondent Silvino R. Malana, Jr. was suspended for two months without pay, with a stern warning. The case against respondent Cipriano B. Verbo, Jr. was dismissed and considered closed and terminated due to his death.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of delay in the performance of duty: The Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA that respondents were guilty of delay in the prompt execution of the writ of demolition. The writ was referred in November 2000, and while some demolitions occurred in January 2001, the demolition of Willie de Guzman's house was only completed on March 9, 2001, over a month later. The respondents' claim of a heavy caseload was belied by their accomplishment report, which primarily consisted of preparing and serving notices within Tuguegarao City. The Court reiterated that court personnel, especially sheriffs, must perform their tasks promptly and diligently, as delays in execution render judgments inutile and prejudice the parties, reflecting adversely on the judicial system. Failure to act promptly on public transactions constitutes a violation of public accountability. The Court emphasized that any conduct diminishing faith in the judiciary cannot be countenanced. On the appropriateness of the penalty: Considering that respondent Malana had a prior administrative case (A.M. No. P-07-2290) where he was suspended for simple neglect of duty and sternly warned, the OCA's recommended penalty of two months' suspension without pay was deemed appropriate. For respondent Verbo, the OCA's recommendation of reprimand could no longer be imposed due to his death.
Main Doctrine
Sheriffs must exert every effort to see to it that execution of judgment is carried out in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of justice. A writ or process left unexecuted or delayed due to their inefficiency is rendered inutile, and worse, the parties who are prejudiced tend to condemn the entire judicial system.