Peña v. Regalado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Domingo Peña, Jr. reported Sheriff Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II for alleged unethical conduct in implementing a writ of execution. The writ stemmed from a judgment in a falsification of public documents case, ordering Peña and another individual to pay a fine and damages to a private complainant, Flora Francisco. Peña alleged that Regalado collected P13,000.00, P4,500.00, and P2,000.00 on separate dates without issuing official receipts, providing only handwritten acknowledgment receipts. Procedural History: Respondent Sheriff Regalado admitted receiving the payments but claimed he delivered them to Flora Francisco, presenting acknowledgment receipts signed by her. The complaint was referred for investigation, report, and recommendation. During the investigation, Peña stated he no longer wished to pursue the case due to health reasons. However, the respondent sheriff confessed to not remitting the collected money to the Clerk of Court, explaining it was to spare Francisco the inconvenience. Flora Francisco confirmed receiving the P13,000.00 but denied receiving the subsequent P4,500.00 and P2,000.00 on the dates indicated on the receipts, stating she only received these amounts after a conference with the investigating judge. The investigating judge recommended suspension, and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissal for grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court following the OCA's recommendation for dismissal. The Court, while finding the respondent administratively liable, modified the OCA's designation of the offense and the penalty. The Court proceeded with the resolution despite the complainant's lack of interest, emphasizing its duty to maintain public faith in the judiciary. The Court found the sheriff guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to follow proper procedures in implementing writs of execution, specifically by not issuing official receipts and by not remitting collected funds to the Clerk of Court as required by the Rules of Court. The Court imposed a suspension of one year without pay.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Sheriff Achilles Regalado II is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to follow the proper procedure in implementing the writ of execution. Whether respondent Sheriff Achilles Regalado II is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct for failing to issue official receipts and remit collected funds properly.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Sheriff Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended him for one (1) year without pay, with a stern warning against repetition of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court held that sheriffs are officers of the court who must discharge their duties with great care and diligence, performing faithfully and accurately what is incumbent upon them. Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court clearly lays down the procedure for executing money judgments, mandating immediate payment on demand, issuance of proper receipts, and remittance of collected amounts to the Clerk of Court within the same day or deposit in a fiduciary account if the judgment obligee is not present. The Court found respondent's excuse for not remitting the money to the Clerk of Court unpersuasive, noting that while his intention in giving the first payment directly to the judgment obligee might have been well-meaning, his actions regarding the subsequent payments were questionable, as the judgment obligee had to complain before receiving them. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that sheriffs are not permitted to retain money in their possession beyond the day of payment or deliver it directly to the judgment obligee, as this circumvents the established procedure. The respondent's admission that he followed the same irregular procedure in other cases demonstrated a blatant disregard for the Rules of Court, constituting conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On the issue of dishonesty and grave misconduct: The Court found that respondent's act of issuing only handwritten acknowledgment receipts instead of official receipts for the payments collected from the complainant constituted a violation of Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual, which mandates the issuance of an official receipt for any payment received. While the OCA found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, the Supreme Court modified the designation of the offense to conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court noted that the respondent's failure to follow basic rules in implementing writs of execution, coupled with his admission of engaging in such irregular practices for years, demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance. However, the Court did not find sufficient basis to impose the penalty of dismissal, opting instead for suspension, considering the specific circumstances and the nature of the offense as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Main Doctrine
Sheriffs are strictly bound to follow the prescribed procedure in implementing money judgments, including the issuance of official receipts for all collections and the remittance of collected amounts to the Clerk of Court within the same day or depositing them in a fiduciary account. Failure to do so constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.