Case Digest (A. M. No. P-04-1782)
Facts:
Serafin A. Anonuevo v. Judge Jose Noel R. Rubio and Sheriff III Danilo C. Adille, A.M. No. P-04-1782, July 30, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Serafin A. Anonuevo, chairman of Legazpi Tricycle Transport Service Cooperative, Inc. (LETTRASCO), filed an administrative letter-complaint dated December 17, 2001, charging respondent Judge Jose Noel R. Rubio of the MTCC–Legazpi City, Branch 3, with rendering an unjust judgment in Civil Cases Nos. 4448 and 4449, and respondent Sheriff III Danilo C. Adille of the same court with inefficiency and/or dereliction of duty in the implementation of the writs of execution issued in those cases.
In 1997 LETTRASCO instituted two collection suits (Civil Cases Nos. 4448 and 4449) against Florentino Revoltar and Alexander Daet to recover P5,000 each, arising from 1995 loans. On February 29, 2000, respondent Judge Rubio rendered judgment in favor of LETTRASCO but awarded interest at 12% per annum from judicial demand instead of the 5% per month allegedly stipulated in the parties’ statements of account. Writs of execution were issued on August 4, 2000.
According to the complaint, the writs were not promptly executed: service allegedly occurred only after prodding in December 2000, after which partial payments were collected (on December 15, 2000 Revoltar P3,500 and Daet P2,500; Revoltar later paid an additional P2,000 in April 2001). Complainant maintained that Daet had not fully paid and that implementation had been unduly delayed, prompting the administrative complaint.
Respondent Judge Rubio, in his April 22, 2002 Comment, denied administrative liability, explaining he resolved the cases on the record and declined to impose the 5% monthly rate because the statements of account were suspicious (blank portions filled in different handwritings); he also noted that the proper remedy for an erroneous decision is appeal and that the administrative complaint was filed nearly two years after the decision and after partial execution. Respondent Sheriff Adille asserted he had served the writs, received partial payments (Revoltar total P5,500; Daet P2,000), described Daet’s indigent condition and promise to pay by September 30, 2002, and asked for compassion.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissal of the complaint against Judge Rubio for lack of merit and recommended that Sheriff Adille be held liable for neglect of duty and suspended o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Jose Noel R. Rubio commit actionable administrative misconduct by rendering an allegedly unjust judgment in Civil Cases Nos. 4448 and 4449?
- Is respondent Sheriff III Danilo C. Adille administratively liable for inefficiency and/or dereliction of duty in the implementation of the writs of e...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)