EN BANC
|
VIRGILIO
A. MUSNGI, Complainant, - versus - ARIEL D. PASCASIO, Sheriff
III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-08-2454
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2561-P) Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,* CORONA,* CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: May 7, 2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Sheriffs are ranking officers
of the court. They play an important
part in the administration of justice — execution being the fruit and end of
the suit, and the life of the law. In
view of their exalted position as keepers of the public faith, their conduct
should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court.[1]
The respondent failed to live up to this creed in the case at bar.
Facts of the Case
This administrative case stemmed from
a Complaint[2] dated
October 31, 2006 of Mr. Virgilio A. Musngi (Mr. Musngi) charging Mr. Ariel D.
Pascasio (Mr. Pascasio), Sheriff III of MTCC, Branch 5, Olongapo City with
Grave Misconduct. Complainant alleges that he is the owner of V.A. Musngi
Forwarders, an SBMA-accredited service contractor. On P7,000.00)
per delivery trip.
Complainant further alleges that
respondent assured him that the taxes imposed on the goods to be transported
were already paid. However, after the Custom’s Police had inspected the goods,
they found out that said goods were smuggled and his two vans were impounded.
Complainant begged for respondent’s assistance but the latter ignored his plea.
Complainant laments that he was in desperate condition to get support for his
family since those vans were his only source of income.
In his Comment dated
The Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), in its Memorandum dated
On
Investigation Report and
Recommendation
During the investigation, the
following persons were summoned to testify before Hon. Pamintuan: Virgilio A.
Musngi, complainant; Aloither Vergel Musngi, son of the complainant; Alexander
Rimando, the Clerk of Court of MTCC,
The findings of the Investigating
Judge based on the facts alleged in the complaint and proved in the
investigation are as follows:
First, it is undisputed that respondent Ariel Pascasio hired on August 8,
2006 the two (2) closed vans of the complainant for P7,000.00 per
delivery trip of each truck purportedly to transport used clothings from the
warehouse of California Waste and Rags Inc. in Subic Bay Freeport Zone to a
warehouse somewhere in Manila by virtue of a Writ of Execution dated October
18, 2005, as per decision issued by Hon. Reynaldo M. Laigo on August 1, 2005,
with the corresponding Notice of Levy/Attachment upon Realty/Personalty which
was prepared and signed by respondent Pascasio, dated November 3, 2005.[3]
The complainant testified that on
Aloither immediately noticed that the
goods to be transported out of the
However, the goods were apprehended
at the Tipo Gate of SBMA, it being a prohibited importation under Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 4653.[7] The
goods, with an estimated value of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00),
were seized, including the carriers, the two (2) closed vans of V.A. Musngi
Forwarders and three (3) closed vans owned by a certain Marlon M. Aguirre. The
vans were impounded by the Bureau of Customs. During the hearing of the seizure
case, Aloither sought the assistance of Sheriff Pascasio for the release of the
vans but the latter never answered his call and did not show up.
The complainant then appeared alone
in the seizure case for the recovery of his vans until the termination of the
proceedings on
The complainant alleged that he suffered
damages in the amount of P14,000.00 for the unpaid charter of the vans,
and approximately P900,000.00 as lost income since complainant was not
able to use the vans for approximately seven (7) months during the pendency of
the seizure proceedings.
Second, the respondent’s defense that he only mediated in the transaction
between the complainant herein and the judgment creditor in the civil case, Anglo-Asia
Corp., was not proven.
The respondent denied that there was
a contract between him and the complainant for the hiring of the latter’s vans.
He alleged that he was merely complying with a writ of execution issued by the
court, and that his only participation was to assist in the loading of the used
clothings on the vans of the complainant. However, it is obvious from the
documentary exhibits presented by the complainant that Sheriff Pascasio
actively took part in the hiring of the vans until the goods were apprehended
at the Tipo Gate. In fact, in the
Request for Inspection and gatepasses, he positively acknowledged that his
signature appeared thereon.[9]
Third, respondent Sheriff Pascasio blatantly disregarded the procedure for
execution of judgments.
Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
explicitly provides that:
With
regard to the 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 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 distribute 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, and the Sheriff’s expenses shall
be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.
The above procedure is mandatory. The
failure of Sheriff Pascasio to pay complainant Musngi the rental for the
hauling service is a clear disregard of the Rules. There is no showing that he
complied with the rules on estimation of expenses and liquidation of the same.
The Sheriff of Branch 5, Mr. Rimando,
a superior of the respondent, testified in court that he was not furnished a
copy of the writ of execution, which is usually done as a matter of procedure.[10]
He came to know about the incident only in the newspapers the day after the
goods and the vans were confiscated by the Bureau of Customs. The Branch Clerk
of Court of Branch 5, Ms. Dianne Fernandez, also testified and her testimony corroborated
the allegation that the vans were hired at the instance of Sheriff Pascasio.[11] It must be noted though that said witness
failed to submit an affidavit to this effect when asked by the court to submit
one.[12]
Moreover, the records of the case disclosed that after the goods and the vans
were seized, the respondent filed the Sheriff’s Report only after the lapse of
fourteen (14) days.
The
Investigating Judge recommended that the respondent be punished with dismissal
from service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment
in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
This Court’s Ruling
The issue in this case is whether or not
Sheriff Pascasio is guilty of grave misconduct for acts prejudicial to the best
interest of service.
The authority of a sheriff is broad,
but it is not boundless. In the
enforcement of judgments and judicial orders, a sheriff as an officer of the
court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends, must necessarily be
circumspect and proper in his behavior.
He must know what is inherently right and wrong and must discharge his
duties with prudence and caution.
Moreover, he must, at all times, show a high degree of professionalism
in the performance of his duties.[13]
The respondent in this case faces the
charge of Grave Misconduct, an offense that carries a severe penalty, which is
dismissal from service,[14]
with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.[15] It is,
therefore, imperative that the guilt of the respondent be proven by substantial
evidence.
It is settled in jurisprudence that “misconduct
is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.”[16] In grave misconduct, there must be
substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of are corrupt or
inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute flagrant disregard
of well-known legal rules.[17]
In the case at bar, the investigation
conducted by Hon. Pamintuan, Executive Judge of MTCC in
due process, the right to be heard and to defend himself against the accusation.
It was also adequately shown that respondent
not only used his position to benefit himself by entering in a contract with
complainant Musngi but he did so in blatant violation of the law, the Rules of
Court and the Code of Conduct of Judicial Employees. Respondent Sheriff
Pascasio argues that he is unaware that the law prohibits the importation of
used clothings. But he also knows that
his ignorance cannot excuse him from compliance. As a Sheriff, respondent ought to know that he
cannot attach goods which are banned and illegal. He should have been more
prudent in the execution of the said writ especially because the value of the
goods is estimated at around Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00).
Further, his disregard of the
procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court in Section 10 of Rule 141 is
unpardonable. As an officer of the court, respondent should set the example by
faithfully observing the Rules of Court, and not brazenly disregard the Rules.[18]
In this case, the actions of the
respondent in contracting with the complainant for the hauling service in the
execution of the writ without complying with the standard procedure of
estimation of expenses; his non-payment of the contract price after the vans
were impounded; and his being adamant to help the complainant recover his vans
being held by the Bureau of Customs are acts prejudicial to the best interest
of service. These are acts which could erode the faith of the people in the
administration of justice. We have held that the administration of justice is a
sacred task, and by the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, all
those involved therein must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and
invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that
public office is a public trust.[19]
Any act or omission on their part which violates the norms of public
accountability or even merely tends to diminish the faith of the people in the
Judiciary must be condemned and never countenanced.[20]
The functions of sheriffs are enumerated under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, as follows:
2.2.4.1 serves and/or executes writs and processes addressed and/or
assigned to him by the Court and prepares and submits returns of his
proceedings;
2.2.4.2 keeps custody of attached properties or goods;
2.2.4.3 maintains his own record books on writs of execution, writs of
attachment, writs of replevin, writs of injunction, and all other processes
executed by him; and
2.2.4.4 performs such other duties as may be assigned by the Executive
Judge, Presiding Judge and/or Branch Clerk of Court.
The records of the case disclose that
the respondent’s shameless disregard of the procedure mandated by Section 10 of
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court equally made him guilty of violating the duties
reposed upon him as a Sheriff of the Court. The testimony of Ms. Fernandez and
Mr. Rimando, both superiors of the respondent, that there was an irregularity
in the execution of the writ as it did not go through the standard procedure
observed in Branch 5 of MTCC, Olongapo City, satisfactorily proved that the
respondent proceeded with this execution under his own rules and on his own
discretion.
In addition, the respondent
misrepresented himself as an authorized representative of this Honorable Court
as the consignee of the prohibited goods. He used the same misrepresentation
from the beginning of the transaction until the prohibited goods were seized at
the Tipo Gate, SBMA. Sheriff Pascasio, purporting to be the authorized
representative, even used the name of the Supreme Court to perpetrate this
nefarious deed, hoping to effect the release of the prohibited goods. We will not tolerate such deceit.
Sheriffs and their deputies are the
front-line representatives of the justice system, and if, through their lack of
care and diligence in the implementation of judicial writs, they lose the trust
reposed on them, they inevitably diminish likewise the faith of the people in
the judiciary.[21]
Sheriff Pascasio failed to comply
with the rigorous standards required of all public officers and employees, for which
he will have to pay dearly. The Court, in many instances, has ruled that erring
court employees do not deserve to stay a minute in the service for it will
erode the dignity of the prime institution which dispenses justice.
In
Remolona v.
Civil Service Commission,[22] the Court En Banc ruled that, to warrant dismissal, grave misconduct or
dishonesty need not be committed in the course of performance of duty by the
person charged. The Court explained the rationale for this rule, as follows:
The
rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest
or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of
character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue
in office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official,
even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his
government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of
dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the
government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office,
he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims
of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared
to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of
an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably
reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and
the discipline and morale of the service.
Public confidence in our courts is
vital to the effective functioning of the judiciary. We reiterate that court
personnel who commit misconduct or dishonesty diminish the faith of the people
in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice.[23]
The
heavily laden responsibility of court employees in maintaining the integrity of
the judiciary extends not only to the performance of their duties but to the
conduct of their personal affairs as well. The records of the case show that
the contract between V.A. Musngi Forwarders and the respondent for a hauling
service was ostensibly entered into in connection with his performance of
functions as an officer of the court.
But even if he acted in his private capacity, he will not be absolved
from liability. His offer to settle the unpaid amount of Fourteen Thousand
Pesos (P14,000.00) if his means would permit, after his suspension is
lifted, will not even justify the application of compassionate justice in his
favor.
Sheriffs, by the very nature of their functions, are under obligation to
perform their duties honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability;
they must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and above all else, be
above suspicion.[24]
The
Court, likewise, observes that this is not the first time that a complaint for
misconduct has been filed against herein respondent. In A.M. No. P-07-2327 (formerly
OCA IPI No. 04-7934-P) entitled Nena Gimena
Solway, complainant v. Ariel P.
Pascasio, Sheriff III, MTCC Branch 5,
Obviously, the respondent has shown a
propensity to commit the same acts if given the opportunity. Respondent has not
learned his lesson; neither has he demonstrated repentance for the damage he
has wrought upon the complainant herein. He no longer deserves to stay in the
service a minute more and even his long years of stay in the government service
will not tilt the balance in his favor.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Ariel P. Pascasio, Sheriff III, MTCC Branch 5, P14,000.00).
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
On leave MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
|
On leave RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
|
ADOLFO S. AZC Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T.
REYES Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
* On leave.
[1] Sabino L. Aranda, Jr. v. Teodoro S. Alvarez, A.M. No. P-04-1889,
[2] Complaint of Mr. Virgilio A. Musngi; rollo, pp. 3-4.
[3] Investigation Report of Hon. Pamintuan, p. 16.
[4] Rollo, p.14.
[5]
[6]
[7] Republic Act No. 4653 “An Act to
Safeguard the Health of the People and Maintain the Dignity of the Nation By
Declaring it a National Policy to Prohibit the Commercial Importation of
Textile Articles Commonly Known as Used Clothings and Rags.”
[8] Annex 8 of the Investigation Report
of Hon. Pamintuan.
[9] TSN,