AM P 00 1364; (September, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-00-1364, September 19, 2002
Dioscoro Comendador, Petitioner, vs. Jorge M. Canabe, Respondent.
FACTS
On February 17, 1997, the Office of the Court Administrator received a letter-complaint from Dioscoro Comendador, a plaintiff in Civil Case No. 411, against Deputy Sheriff Jorge M. Canabe of the RTC, Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte, for willful and deliberate failure to serve a writ of execution. The complainant alleged that Sheriff Canabe received two copies of the writ of execution from the Municipal Trial Court of Leyte, Leyte, in September 1995 and December 1995, but failed to serve them on the defendants and to make a return of service, as certified by the Clerk of Court on February 3, 1997. Respondent was required to file an Answer but did so only on April 23, 1999, after a follow-up directive. In his Answer, respondent claimed he served the writ on the principal defendant, Atty. Vicente Ramirez, and informed the complainant that said defendant was in Metro Manila at the time of service. He also complained that the P200.00 given by the complainant for transportation expenses was insufficient. The Office of the Court Administrator found insufficient evidence to prove deliberate refusal to serve the writs but found respondent liable for failure to submit a return or report on the writs as required by rules.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Jorge M. Canabe is administratively liable for his actions concerning the service and return of the writs of execution.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross negligence and gross misconduct. While there was insufficient evidence to prove a deliberate refusal to serve the writs, respondent undisputedly failed to submit his returns for the writs issued in September and December 1995, violating Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and related administrative circulars. His failure to submit returns for over a year constituted gross negligence. Furthermore, his acceptance of P200.00 from the complainant for expenses without securing the court’s approval and issuing an official receipt, as required under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, constituted gross misconduct. Considering the importance of the sheriff’s role in the execution of judgments and the administration of justice, and noting that respondent had compulsorily retired, the Court increased the recommended fine from P1,000.00 to P10,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.