AM P 07 2385; (October, 2009) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-07-2385; October 26, 2009
JUDGE JACINTO C. GONZALES, Complainant, vs. CLERK OF COURT AND CITY SHERIFF ALEXANDER C. RIMANDO, CLERK III ANNALIZA O. FLORES, SHERIFF III PERLITA D. DUMLAO, and UTILITY WORKER I RAMON R. RAMONES, Respondents.
FACTS
Branch Sheriff Rewel Cerenio was relieved from his duties at the MTCC, Branch 2, Olongapo City. Instead of turning over unserved court processes to the Branch Clerk of Court, he gave them to respondent Clerk of Court-City Sheriff Alexander Rimando. Among these was a writ of execution for a sum of money case, “Shirley Gonzaga v. Felicitas de la Cruz.” On July 11, 2006, Rimando implemented this writ by seizing a Hyundai Starex van belonging to Ramon Reyes, who was not a party to the case. On July 16, 2006, a Sunday, Rimando attempted to release the van but was prevented by a security guard on the order of Presiding Judge Jacinto Gonzales. Judge Gonzales then filed an administrative complaint against Rimando and others for grave misconduct, usurpation of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
During the investigation by the Executive Judge, it was revealed that Rimando had also filed a Notice of Lis Pendens on the vehicle with the LTO. Respondents Perlita Dumlao and Ramon Ramones submitted comments denying direct participation in the illegal seizure and subsequent release attempt, claiming they merely followed Rimando’s orders. Rimando repeatedly failed to submit his required comment to the Office of the Court Administrator despite extensions and a show-cause order.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Alexander C. Rimando is administratively liable for his actions in implementing the writ of execution and for his subsequent defiance of lawful orders.
RULING
Yes, Rimando is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and two counts of Gross Insubordination. His implementation of the writ was grossly irregular. A sheriff must execute judgments strictly according to their terms; he may levy only on property belonging to the judgment debtor. Rimando unlawfully seized property of a non-party, Ramon Reyes, demonstrating gross ignorance of basic procedure and wanton disregard for property rights, which eroded public confidence in the judiciary. His act of attempting to release the vehicle on a Sunday further highlighted the irregularity.
Furthermore, Rimando exhibited gross insubordination through his repeated and unjustified refusal to comply with the lawful directives of both Judge Gonzales and the Office of the Court Administrator to submit his comment. His claim of being preoccupied or feeling prejudged by the judge does not excuse his defiance. Such conduct constitutes a refusal to obey lawful orders connected with official duty, warranting severe penalty. The charges against Perlita Dumlao and Ramon Ramones were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence proving their personal culpability. Annaliza Flores’s case was dismissed due to her death. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Rimando from service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.