TL;DR

In a decisive move to uphold judicial integrity, the Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed Sheriff George P. Clemente for Gross Neglect of Duty and Gross Misconduct. Clemente was found to have unjustifiably delayed the implementation of court-issued writs of execution and engaged in unauthorized collection of fees from litigants. This ruling underscores the high ethical standards expected of court personnel, particularly sheriffs, who play a crucial role in the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that sheriffs must strictly adhere to procedural rules and avoid any actions that could erode public trust in the judiciary. This case serves as a stern warning that misconduct and dereliction of duty will be met with severe consequences, ensuring accountability within the judicial system and reinforcing the public’s faith in fair and efficient legal processes.

Justice Delayed and Fees Demanded: Sheriff Clemente’s Breach of Trust

The Supreme Court addressed serious allegations against Sheriff George P. Clemente, stemming from complaints filed by Atty. Sotero T. Rambayon. The complaints detailed Clemente’s persistent delays in executing court orders and his questionable practice of demanding unauthorized fees from parties involved in court cases. The core issue revolved around whether Clemente’s actions constituted grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, warranting disciplinary action. Atty. Rambayon’s initial letters to Clemente, and subsequent formal complaints to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), highlighted specific instances of Clemente’s irregularities. These included delaying the implementation of writs of execution in Civil Case No. 056-015 and Civil Case No. 028-15, and demanding fees beyond what is legally permissible, such as “mobilization fees” and “police escort fees”.

The investigation revealed a pattern of misconduct. In Civil Case No. 028-15, Clemente allegedly granted defendants unauthorized extensions and attempted to pocket a portion of payments made by them. In Civil Case No. 050-14, he reportedly demanded various items and cash from the plaintiff spouses Taroma, including food, beverages, laborer wages, surveyor fees, and even a goat for his birthday, later accepting a pig instead. The Spouses Taroma’s public exposure of Clemente’s actions on a television program further substantiated the claims. The OCA’s investigation, initiated through a directive to Vice Executive Judge Maria Magdalena Anistoso Balderama, corroborated Atty. Rambayon’s accusations, with other lawyers anonymously confirming Clemente’s propensity for soliciting money from litigants. Despite being directed by the OCA to formally comment on the allegations, Clemente failed to respond, which the Court considered a waiver of his right to defend himself and an implied admission of the charges.

The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) reviewed the case and agreed with the OCA’s findings, ultimately recommending Clemente’s dismissal. The JIB categorized Clemente’s infractions into Gross Neglect of Duty for the delayed writ implementation and two counts of Gross Misconduct for unlawfully demanding fees. The Court, in its decision, adopted the JIB’s recommendation with modifications, emphasizing the ministerial nature of a sheriff’s duty in executing writs as outlined in Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates sheriffs to promptly enforce writs and submit timely reports to the court.

SECTION 14. Return of writ of execution. –The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.

The Court reiterated that sheriffs have no discretion to delay execution and must act with reasonable speed. Clemente’s delays in Civil Case No. 056-15 and Civil Case No. 028-15 were deemed clear violations of this duty, constituting Gross Neglect of Duty. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of unauthorized fees, referencing Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, which specifies the procedure for sheriff’s expenses. This rule requires sheriffs to submit expense estimates to the court for approval, with payments to be deposited with the clerk of court, not directly to the sheriff.

SECTION 10. Sheriffs, Process Servers and other persons serving processes. –

. . . .

With regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding 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 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, the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as cost against the judgment debtor.

Clemente’s direct demands for “police escort fees” and “mobilization fees” without court approval were a direct violation of Rule 141 and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, specifically Canon I, Sections 1 and 2, which prohibit using official position for unwarranted benefits and soliciting gifts. The Court classified these actions as Gross Misconduct, emphasizing that soliciting money from litigants is a grave offense. Considering Clemente’s repeated infractions, including prior administrative penalties for neglect of duty, the Court imposed separate penalties for each offense: fines for Gross Neglect of Duty and one count of Gross Misconduct, and Dismissal from Service for the second count of Gross Misconduct. This decision serves as a strong reminder to all court personnel, particularly sheriffs, of their duty to uphold the highest standards of integrity and public service. The Court’s firm stance underscores its commitment to maintaining public trust and ensuring the efficient and ethical administration of justice.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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: RAMBAYON vs. CLEMENTE, A.M. No. P-23-093, December 05, 2023