"With respect to Judge Ayco, the Court stresses that the propriety or impropriety of the motion for reconsideration is judicial in nature and therefore, beyond the scope of this administrative proceedings. He however, cannot be excused for the delay in resolving complainants’ motion for reconsideration. Records show that the motion was deemed submitted for resolution on
The public’s faith and confidence in the judicial system depends largely on the judicious and prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending before the courts.[29] Failure to decide a case or resolve a motion within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring judge.[30]
Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious offense. Pursuant to Section 11 of the same rule, such offense is punishable by:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
In Judge Angeles v. Judge Sempio Diy,[31] however, the Court mitigated the penalty to admonition considering that it was the respondent judge’s first infraction of the rules and in the absence of bad faith or malice. Following the said ruling, the Court approves the recommendation of the OCA to admonish Judge Ayco and sternly warn him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely.
With respect to Sheriff Calsenia, the Court finds that he failed to strictly comply with the requirement of prior notice to vacate before demolition as required by the rules. Section 10(c) of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the procedure in the enforcement of the writ. To quote:
Sec. 10(c). Delivery or restitution of real property. – The officer shall demand of the person against whom the judgment for the delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the property within three (3) working days, and restore possession thereof to the judgment obligee; otherwise, the officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the judgment obligee in possession of such property. Any costs, damages, rents or profits awarded by the judgment shall be satisfied in the same manner as a judgment for money. [Emphasis supplied]
It is the duty of the sheriff to give notice of such writ and demand from the defendant (in this case, the complainants) to vacate the property within three days. Only after such period can the sheriff enforce the writ by the bodily removal of defendant and his personal belongings.[32] This notice requirement is anchored on the fundamentals of justice and fair play. The law discourages any form of arbitrary and oppressive conduct in the execution of an otherwise legitimate act.[33] Thus, a sheriff must strictly comply with the Rules of Court in executing a writ. Any act deviating from the procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court is tantamount to misconduct and necessitates disciplinary action.[34]
The Court recognizes the fact that sheriffs play a vital role in the administration of justice. In view of their important position, their conduct should always be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court. In Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna,[35] the Court explained that sheriffs have the obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their abilities.[36] They must always hold inviolate and revitalize the principle that a public office is a public trust.[37] As court personnel, their conduct must be beyond reproach and free from any doubt that may infect the judiciary.[38] They must be careful and proper in their behavior.[39] They must use reasonable skill and diligence in performing their official duties, especially when the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by neglect.[40] They are ranking officers of the court entrusted with a fiduciary role.[41]They perform an important piece in the administration of justice and they are required to discharge their duties with integrity, reasonable dispatch, due care, and circumspection. Anything below the standard is unacceptable.[42] This is because in serving the court’s writs and processes and in implementing the orders of the court, sheriffs cannot afford to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the administration of justice.[43] Sheriffs are at the grassroots of our judicial machinery and are indispensably in close contact with litigants, hence their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the image of a court of justice is necessarily echoed in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the people who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of the ranks.[44]
In this case, Sheriff Calsenia was not able to faithfully do what was required and expected of him. Thus, the Court agrees with the OCA that Sheriff Calsenia is guilty of simple misconduct. Under Section 52, B(2), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. Considering that it is the first offense of Sheriff Calsenia, the Court hereby imposes upon Sheriff Calsenia the penalty of three (3) months suspension with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt more severely in the future. "
No comments:
Post a Comment