People v. Covacha
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 16, 1927, Attorney Jose F. Orozco, representing Hoskyn & Co., sent a summons and complaint in civil case No. 6077 to the Provincial Sheriff of Occidental Negros, for service upon the defendant Jose R. Borromeo. The summons was received by the office of the Provincial Sheriff on May 21, 1927. The defendant, Andres Covacha, was a deputy provincial sheriff in charge of the office. Procedural History: The defendant, as deputy provincial sheriff, transmitted the summons to another deputy sheriff, Roque F. Marco, on June 9, 1927, nineteen days after its receipt. Attorney Orozco sent follow-up letters on June 24, 1927, and July 24, 1927, inquiring about the service. The defendant, on July 27, 1927, replied that the summons had been sent to Deputy Sheriff Marco and that no return of service had been made. Up to the date of the trial on March 13, 1928, no return of service was made, and Orozco had to secure a special sheriff and a new summons. The defendant was charged with desacato (contempt of court) under Section 232 of Act No. 190. The Court of First Instance found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment and costs. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The defendant appealed, contending that the facts stated in the complaint and the evidence adduced did not show his guilt for contempt. The Attorney-General recommended the confirmation of the sentence.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the defendant, as a deputy provincial sheriff, to make a return of service of a summons amounts to contempt of court under Section 232 of Act No. 190. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to justify the conviction for contempt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the defendant guilty of contempt of court and sentencing him to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of contempt of court for failure to make a return of service: The Court held that a sheriff and his deputies are officers of the court and must comply with its orders and serve its processes. Section 183(c) of the Administrative Code mandates that the sheriff shall serve all writs, execute all processes, and carry into effect all orders issuing from the Court of First Instance. The failure to make a return of service of a summons, without excuse or justification, constitutes misbehavior and gross negligence in the performance of official duties. This failure amounts to contempt of court as defined in Section 232 of Act No. 190, specifically under the provision concerning "Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of his official duties, or in his official transactions." The Court emphasized that "misbehavior" includes a willful refusal or negligent failure, without just cause, of an officer of the court to comply with an order of the court. The defendant's actions, in receiving the summons and failing to serve it or make a timely return, directly interfered with the due administration of justice. The Court cited United States v. Manalo (14 Phil., 747) which held that an officer of the court negligent in the performance of official duties is guilty of contempt, as courts must have complete control over the official acts of those through whom the administration of justice proceeds. On the sufficiency of the evidence: The Court found that the evidence amply justified the conclusions of the lower court. The record clearly disclosed that a regular summons, issued in the regular way and placed in the hands of the defendant to be served, was not served, and no return of service was made. The defendant did not attempt to justify his failure to comply with the order of the court and the law. The Court found no escape from the confirmation of the sentence appealed from, stating that a careful study of the entire record and the applicable law fully justified the findings and the sentence imposed.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff or deputy sheriff, as an officer of the court, who willfully and negligently fails to serve a process of the court, such as a summons, and fails to make a return of service, is guilty of contempt of court under Section 232 of Act No. 190, for misbehavior in the performance of official duties.