Development Bank v. Joaquino
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed a complaint against Clerk of Court Jeoffrey S. Joaquino and Sheriff IV Constancio V. Alimurung. The complaint stemmed from actions taken in Civil Case No. CEB-29383, where DBP was the defendant. The RTC Branch 21, presided by Judge Eric F. Menchavez, rendered a Partial Summary Judgment on September 6, 2006, directing DBP to release GSIS insurance proceeds. DBP's motion for reconsideration was denied, and it filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC granted execution pending appeal on January 29, 2007, despite DBP's opposition and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Respondent Joaquino issued a Writ of Execution on March 21, 2007. DBP filed an Urgent Motion to Stay Discretionary Execution, which was denied. DBP filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 02604) assailing the orders granting execution pending appeal. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated July 20, 2007, annulled and set aside the RTC orders granting execution pending appeal and the subsequent writs and processes. FJP Lines' motion for reconsideration was denied. Later, FJP Lines moved to dismiss DBP's appeal, which was granted by the RTC in an Order dated March 6, 2008. DBP sought reconsideration of this order. On March 17, 2008, respondent Joaquino issued another Writ of Execution to implement the Partial Judgment of September 6, 2006. Sheriff Alimurung served this writ to DBP. On April 4, 2008, Judge Menchavez inhibited himself. On the same day, Sheriff Alimurung served a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale for DBP's proprietary shares in Cebu Country Club, scheduled for April 8, 2008. DBP objected, stating the partial judgment was not yet final and executory. Despite the objection, Sheriff Alimurung proceeded with the auction sale. DBP filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with an Application for TRO/Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Alimurung. During the TRO hearing, Alimurung manifested his intent to further implement the writ. On April 16, 2008, Alimurung issued another Notice of Sheriff’s Sale over DBP's parcels of land. DBP filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for TRO/Injunction against various parties, including Joaquino and Alimurung, before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 03411). The Petition: On August 11, 2010, the Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, finding respondent Joaquino guilty of gross ignorance of the Rules and dereliction of duty, imposing a penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay. The complaint against respondent Alimurung was dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent Joaquino sought reconsideration, and DBP sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the complaint against Alimurung. Both motions were denied on February 7, 2011. Respondent Joaquino filed a second motion for reconsideration, arguing he relied on the RTC orders and that the penalty was too harsh compared to other cases. The Court, out of compassion, reviewed the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Joaquino is guilty of gross ignorance of the Rules and dereliction of duty; and if so, whether the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay is appropriate. Whether the complaint against respondent Alimurung should be dismissed.
Ruling
The Court modified the penalty imposed on respondent Jeoffrey S. Joaquino, Clerk of Court VII, from suspension for six (6) months without pay to a FINE of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00), with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall merit his dismissal from the service. The complaint against respondent Constancio V. Alimurung, Sheriff IV, was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent Joaquino's guilt for gross ignorance of the Rules and dereliction of duty and the appropriateness of the penalty: The Court found respondent Joaquino guilty of gross ignorance of the Rules and dereliction of duty because he issued a Writ of Execution on March 17, 2008, to implement a Partial Summary Judgment dated September 6, 2006, despite the Court of Appeals having annulled the orders granting execution pending appeal. Issuing a writ of execution to enforce a judgment declared void by a higher court constitutes gross ignorance of the law and dereliction of duty. However, in the spirit of compassion and considering the circumstances, the Court modified the penalty. Joaquino argued he issued the writ based on his honest reliance on the RTC's March 6, 2008 Order, which dismissed DBP's notice of appeal and declared the Partial Summary Judgment final and executory. Comparing the penalty to similar cases, the Court reduced the penalty to a fine of ₱10,000.00, with a strong warning against future transgressions. On the dismissal of the complaint against respondent Alimurung: The complaint against Sheriff IV Constancio V. Alimurung was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court found no sufficient basis to hold Alimurung liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. While Alimurung did serve the writ of execution and notices of sheriff's sale, the resolution of the administrative complaint against him was based on the findings that the actions taken by the Clerk of Court, which led to the issuance of the writ, were the primary subject of the administrative case. The Court's decision to annul the execution pending appeal orders meant that the basis for the sheriff's actions was ultimately invalidated by the Court of Appeals. The dismissal suggests that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish his culpability for the alleged offenses.
Main Doctrine
While a Clerk of Court may be held liable for gross ignorance of the law and dereliction of duty for issuing a writ of execution based on a judgment that was annulled by the Court of Appeals, the penalty may be modified from suspension to a fine, considering the circumstances and in the spirit of compassion, especially when the writ was issued based on a subsequent order declaring the judgment final and executory, albeit that order was also subject to appeal.