AM P 06 2122; (July, 2007) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-06-2122. July 17, 2007. SAULA DE LEON-DELA CRUZ, Complainant, vs. FERNANDO P. RECACHO, Cash Clerk, and RODERICK D. ABAIGAR, Deputy Sheriff, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 79, Las Piñas City, Respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Saula de Leon-dela Cruz, the prevailing plaintiff in a civil case for ejectment, charged respondents with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, and Dereliction of Duty. She alleged that Cash Clerk Fernando Recacho hid and refused to furnish her copies of crucial court orders, including the writ of execution and demolition order. Deputy Sheriff Roderick Abaigar was accused of unjustifiably delaying the execution of the demolition order and soliciting unreceipted money totaling ₱50,000.00 as a condition for its implementation, allegedly in connivance with a police official. In a supplemental complaint, she detailed giving Abaigar ₱14,000.00 for demolition crew expenses without a receipt and claimed the demolition was only partially completed due to his unethical conduct.
In their defense, Abaigar denied receiving money and attributed delays to the complainant’s failure to coordinate with police and the squatters’ plea for an extension. Recacho contended he did not hide the writs but was hampered by a heavy workload involving clerical duties for three judges. The case was referred for investigation, which found both respondents liable for violations.
ISSUE
Whether respondents are administratively liable for their actions in relation to the implementation of the court’s writs and orders.
RULING
Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). For Abaigar, the Court found him guilty of Grave Misconduct. His solicitation of money from the complainant without issuing official receipts constitutes a severe transgression that erodes public trust in the judiciary. While the OCA recommended dismissal, the Court modified the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay, considering his actions a flagrant violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which mandates expeditious enforcement of court orders.
For Recacho, the Court found him guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. His failure to promptly act on the complainant’s requests for copies of court orders, blaming it on a heavy workload, demonstrates a lack of diligence. Court personnel must perform their duties promptly and efficiently, as any delay prejudices litigants and undermines the judicial process. He was fined ₱2,000.00. The Court emphasized that all judiciary personnel must uphold the highest standards of public service, and any conduct falling short of these norms warrants disciplinary action to preserve the integrity of the justice system.