People v. Ramano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jose S. Dela Riva filed an administrative complaint against respondent Jose M. Ramano, Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 140, Makati City, for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act). The complaint alleged extortion, deliberate delay in serving court processes, and refusal to levy, relative to Civil Case No. 35349. Procedural History: A criminal case for violation of R.A. No. 3019 was filed against Ramano before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15166. The administrative case was filed by the Office of the Court Administrator. Ramano denied the charges, claiming the delay was due to the complainant's refusal to consult his lawyer and failure to point out properties to be levied. The administrative proceedings were held in abeyance pending judgment in the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan convicted Ramano on November 4, 1991, and denied his motion for reconsideration. This Court dismissed his petition for review on certiorari, and an entry of judgment was issued on March 25, 1993. Ramano failed to appear during the promulgation of judgment and was ordered arrested, remaining at-large. He had also been absent from work without official leave since July 1, 1993. The administrative matter was referred to the OCA for evaluation. The OCA found Ramano guilty of serious misconduct, recommending his dismissal from service. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint against Jose M. Ramano, Deputy Sheriff.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Jose M. Ramano is guilty of gross misconduct for deliberate delay in serving court processes and refusal to levy. Whether respondent Jose M. Ramano's conviction for violation of R.A. No. 3019 warrants his dismissal from service.
Ruling
The Court finds Jose M. Ramano, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 140, Makati City, GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and orders his DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross misconduct for deliberate delay in serving court processes and refusal to levy: The Court found that Ramano was negligent in implementing the writ of execution because complainant Dela Riva refused to give in to Ramano's demand for a 35% share of whatever might be collected. Despite Dela Riva providing leads, Ramano refused to facilitate the implementation. Ramano's claim that the delay was due to Dela Riva's refusal to consult his lawyer and failure to locate properties was unsubstantiated, as Ramano himself failed to make inquiries with pertinent government offices. The Court noted that Dela Riva would not have instituted a criminal action if he were innocent. The Sandiganbayan's findings, which established Ramano's refusal to take sincere efforts to implement the writ to compel Dela Riva to agree to his demand for a 35% share, were considered substantial evidence in the administrative proceedings. This refusal was deemed deliberate and adopted as a means to obtain consideration. On the issue of whether respondent Jose M. Ramano's conviction for violation of R.A. No. 3019 warrants his dismissal from service: The Court affirmed the recommendation of the OCA for dismissal. The conviction of Ramano for violation of R.A. No. 3019 had already attained finality. Furthermore, Ramano had been absent from work without leave since July 1, 1993, and remained at-large since his arrest order. This disappearance was viewed as an indication of guilt and resistance to lawful orders. As employees of the judiciary, sheriffs are expected to uphold high standards of conduct, maintain the prestige and integrity of the court, and discharge their duties with utmost diligence. Any conduct that diminishes faith in the judiciary will not be countenanced. The Court reiterated that sheriffs have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch, and it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness.
Main Doctrine
Sheriffs are expected to perform their sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch. Deliberate delay or refusal to implement a writ of execution to extort consideration constitutes gross misconduct, warranting dismissal from service.