AM 05 12 372 MTCc; (December, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. 05-12-372-MTCC. December 24, 2008.
Re: Judge HECTOR B. BARILLO, Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities – Canlaon City, complainant, vs. Clerk of Court CARMEL A. CUIZON and Sheriff PERSHING T. YARED, respondents.
FACTS
Judge Hector B. Barillo issued a resolution on January 28, 2005, in Criminal Case No. 1739, directing Sheriff Pershing T. Yared to proceed with the auction of a motor vehicle (Strada) after the resolution became final and executory. Instead of complying, Sheriff Yared, with the conformity of Clerk of Court Carmel A. Cuizon, accepted the judgment amount of Php 121,000.00 from a third party (the counsel for the judgment obligor, Jose Calderon, Jr.) at Cuizon’s office. They immediately paid the amount to a representative of the judgment creditors (the heirs of the victim) and released the Strada to Calderon, all without the knowledge and authority of Judge Barillo. Judge Barillo subsequently issued an order demanding explanations from the respondents and later filed a complaint for Grave Abuse of Authority.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Clerk of Court Carmel A. Cuizon and Sheriff Pershing T. Yared are administratively liable for their actions in facilitating the extrajudicial settlement and release of the property subject to execution without court authority.
RULING
Yes, the respondents are administratively liable for Simple Misconduct. The Supreme Court concurred with the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) findings. Sheriff Yared defied a lawful court order by not conducting the auction sale and by releasing the vehicle upon payment without specific authorization from the court, thereby unduly exercising a discretion belonging solely to a judge. Clerk of Court Cuizon unduly exercised a judicial function by giving her conformity to the release, arrogating unto herself authority properly belonging to a judge. While the Court found no bad faith or intent to defy judicial authority, and their actions were motivated by a desire to expedite the case, they overstepped the limits of their authority in violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. The penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay was imposed on both respondents, with a stern warning against repetition.