G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-03-1730; January 18, 2011 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1469-P)
Case Title: Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, Martin Gumarang, Vic Jumalon, Leonardo Lucas, Wilfredo Deus, Corazon Azarraga and Alice Buenafe, Complainants, vs. OIC Branch Clerk of Court Babe SJ. Ramirez, Clerk Violeta P. Flordeliza and Sheriff IV Carlos A. Salvador, Respondents.

FACTS

The complainants were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 98-0006 for specific performance before the RTC, Branch 69, Binangonan, Rizal. A judgment based on a compromise was rendered on November 24, 1998. On August 18, 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. The complainants alleged they did not receive a copy of this order. On September 18, 2000, when Judge Iturralde and Gumarang inquired, they found the original order and all copies still attached to the case records with clerk Violeta Flordeliza, who appeared nervous and unaware. They confronted OIC Branch Clerk of Court Babe Ramirez, who, after hesitation, issued the writ that same day. Sheriff Carlos Salvador allegedly refused to implement this writ, falsely claiming the defendants had appealed. The defendants had instead filed a petition for annulment of judgment, which was dismissed.
Upon the plaintiffs’ motion, the court issued an order for an alias writ on June 27, 2002. Ramirez issued the alias writ on July 3, 2002, but it was defective: it lacked a case number and listed the principal individual defendants only as “ET AL.” in the title. The complainants manually corrected these omissions. When attempting to enforce the alias writ, Salvador again refused, claiming unresolved issues and instructions from Judge Tiamson, despite no lawful restraining order being in place. The complainants accused the respondents of unlawful acts that disobeyed court orders and obstructed justice.
In their defense, Salvador denied refusing to serve the writs and claimed he performed his duties, resulting in a garnishment. He refused only a specific request from Judge Iturralde to sign a withdrawal authority while a petition to annul was pending. He also accused Judge Iturralde of improper involvement in the case for personal gain. Ramirez denied the charges, claiming she issued the first writ on the same day it was demanded despite the other party not being notified. She attributed the defects in the alias writ to the complainants’ haste and their own preference for the “ET AL.” designation. Flordeliza claimed she mailed the August 18, 2000 order on August 28, 2000, as part of her normal duties, and denied any malicious delay.

ISSUE

Whether respondents OIC Branch Clerk of Court Babe SJ. Ramirez, Clerk Violeta P. Flordeliza, and Sheriff IV Carlos A. Salvador are administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for their actions and omissions in relation to the implementation of the writs of execution in Civil Case No. 98-0006.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the respondents administratively liable.
1. As to Violeta P. Flordeliza (Clerk): The Court found her guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. Her claim of mailing the August 18, 2000 order on August 28, 2000, was uncorroborated and belied by the complainants’ discovery of all copies of the order still attached to the records on September 18, 2000. Her failure to promptly perform a routine clerical duty—mailing the court order—caused undue delay in the execution process. She was suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day.
2. As to Babe SJ. Ramirez (OIC Branch Clerk of Court): The Court found her guilty of Simple Misconduct. While she eventually issued the writs, her actions demonstrated inefficiency and neglect. The issuance of the grossly defective alias writ (lacking a case number and proper defendant names) was inexcusable, even under pressure, as it was her duty to ensure the correctness of court processes. This negligence hampered the enforcement of the judgment. She was suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day.
3. As to Carlos A. Salvador (Sheriff IV): The Court found him guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. His unjustified refusal to implement the alias writ of execution on July 29, 2002, based on alleged “unresolved issues” and instructions from Judge Tiamson—in the absence of any lawful order (TRO or injunction) suspending its enforcement—constituted a blatant dereliction of his ministerial duty. His defiance directly obstructed the administration of justice. For this grave offense, the penalty of DISMISSAL from service was imposed, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.
The countercharges against Judge Iturralde were dismissed for lack of merit, as his active participation in the case where he was a plaintiff-in-interest did not, by itself, constitute misconduct absent proof of using his office for undue influence. The Court emphasized the paramount duty of court personnel to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and promptly execute final judgments.