The Supreme Court’s decision in Saula De Leon-Dela Cruz v. Fernando P. Recacho and Roderick D. Abaigar underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of ethical conduct among its personnel. The Court found a sheriff guilty of grave misconduct for demanding money for the execution of a demolition order, and a clerk guilty of simple neglect of duty for mishandling court records, reinforcing the principle that public office is a public trust. This ruling demonstrates the Court’s resolve in safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system and preserving public trust through strict enforcement of accountability.

Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: Unraveling Misconduct in Court Execution

This case originated from a complaint filed by Saula de Leon-dela Cruz against Fernando P. Recacho, a cash clerk, and Roderick D. Abaigar, a deputy sheriff, both of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City. The charges included conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave misconduct, and dereliction of duty. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 6340, where Dela Cruz was the plaintiff and Lolita Salazar the defendant. The core of the issue revolved around the delayed execution of a court order and allegations of unlawful solicitation of money.

Dela Cruz alleged that Recacho withheld crucial court orders, including the order granting her motion for execution, the writ of execution itself, and the demolition order. She further claimed that Abaigar unjustifiably delayed the execution of the demolition order and solicited P50,000 as a condition for its implementation, allegedly in collusion with a police official. The supplemental complaint detailed further payments made to Abaigar without receipts, and accusations that Abaigar instructed her to hire her own demolition crew, thus causing further delays. Abaigar denied receiving any money from Dela Cruz and claimed delays were due to her failure to coordinate with police authorities. Recacho contended the delay in serving the writs was due to his heavy workload and that he served three judges.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended Abaigar be found guilty of grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, while Recacho was found guilty of neglect of duty for failing to act promptly on requests. The OCA recommended dismissal for Abaigar and a fine for Recacho. The Supreme Court largely concurred with the OCA’s findings. The Court emphasized that court personnel must perform their tasks promptly, diligently, and with utmost care, particularly sheriffs who are responsible for executing judgments. The Court stressed that delays in the execution of judgments render the entire judicial system ineffective, undermining public confidence.

The Court highlighted that sheriffs must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, ensuring their actions are beyond suspicion. Any conduct that violates public accountability or diminishes faith in the judiciary cannot be tolerated. In this case, Abaigar failed to act promptly on the writ of execution issued on October 23, 2003, and the writ of demolition issued on December 1, 2004. His partial return was only made on April 25, 2005, almost four months after the demolition order, violating established rules. The Court also noted that regardless of the exact amount Abaigar received, the very act of demanding money from Dela Cruz for the execution of the writ constituted a grave breach of conduct.

Sec. 10. Sheriffs, PROCESS SERVERS and other persons serving processes. –

x x x x

With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safe-guarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. The liquidation shall be approved by the court. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, x x x.

The Supreme Court reiterated that Abaigar’s actions were a deviation from the rules governing the execution of court processes, thereby warranting administrative sanctions. Citing Apuyan, Jr. v. Sta. Isabel, the Court reinforced that demanding and receiving money for expenses not authorized by the Rules of Court constitutes unlawful exaction, rendering the sheriff liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. Despite the gravity of the offense, the Court considered that Abaigar was a first-time offender. Instead of dismissal, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from office for one year without pay. Regarding Recacho, the Court found no reason to deviate from the findings of the Investigating Justice and Court Administrator.

Recacho admitted he was in charge of handling court records, and that Dela Cruz’s case record was misplaced during a renovation from June to December 2003. He claimed that the hearings were not affected and that he found the record in July 2004. However, the Court found that Recacho’s claim of misplacement did not exonerate him, especially since he testified that hearings were not affected. The Court noted his heavy workload was not an excuse, and that as the person in charge of court records, he should have taken steps to safeguard them during the renovation. The delay of almost ten months in releasing a copy of the writ of execution demonstrated indifference, eroding public faith in the judiciary, making him accountable for simple neglect of duty.

Simple neglect of duty involves disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, classified as a less grave offense. A fine of P2,000.00 was deemed just and reasonable. The Court reiterated that every person connected with the administration of justice bears a heavy responsibility. Public officers must perform their duties with utmost efficiency and competence, holding themselves accountable to the people, especially court litigants. The Court affirmed its policy of not tolerating any conduct that falls short of the exacting norms of public office, emphasizing its duty to impose discipline to maintain public faith in the justice system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the actions of a deputy sheriff in soliciting money for the execution of a court order and a cash clerk in mishandling court records constituted grave misconduct and neglect of duty, respectively. The Supreme Court assessed the administrative liability of these court personnel.
What did the deputy sheriff do that led to the charges?	The deputy sheriff, Abaigar, was accused of delaying the execution of a demolition order and demanding money from the complainant as a condition for implementing the order. He allegedly received payments without issuing receipts and instructed the complainant to hire her own demolition crew.
What was the ruling regarding the deputy sheriff’s actions?	The Supreme Court found Abaigar guilty of grave misconduct. Although dismissal was initially considered, the Court, taking into account that he was a first-time offender, imposed a penalty of suspension from office for one year without pay.
What did the cash clerk do that led to the charges?	The cash clerk, Recacho, was accused of hiding and withholding crucial court orders, including the order granting the motion for execution, the writ of execution, and the demolition order. The complainant alleged that he failed to provide her with copies of these documents despite repeated requests.
What was the Court’s decision regarding the cash clerk’s actions?	The Court found Recacho guilty of simple neglect of duty. They determined that he failed to properly safeguard court records and was indifferent to his responsibilities, warranting a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).
Why was the deputy sheriff not dismissed from service?	Despite the gravity of the misconduct, the Court considered that the deputy sheriff was a first-time offender. Section 53 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service allows for consideration of mitigating circumstances in determining penalties.
What is the significance of this ruling for court personnel?	This ruling emphasizes the high standards of ethical conduct and diligence expected of all court personnel. It underscores the principle that public office is a public trust, and any breach of conduct or neglect of duty will be met with appropriate disciplinary action.
How does this case impact the public’s trust in the judiciary?	By holding court personnel accountable for their actions, the Supreme Court aims to reinforce public trust in the judicial system. The Court’s commitment to imposing discipline on its employees ensures that justice is administered fairly and efficiently, preserving the integrity of the judiciary.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s resolution serves as a stern reminder to all court personnel of their duty to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and efficiency. By imposing appropriate sanctions for misconduct and neglect of duty, the Court reaffirms its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and safeguarding public trust. This case underscores the importance of accountability and diligence in public service, ensuring that justice is not only served but also perceived to be served with fairness and impartiality.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Saula De Leon-Dela Cruz v. Fernando P. Recacho and Roderick D. Abaigar, A.M. No. P-06-2122, July 17, 2007