Facts:

The administrative complaint in this case stems from Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon, who served as the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City. The respondent, Sheriff III Rene D. Zaldivar, faced allegations of gross neglect of duty and dishonesty. The complaint, dated February 24, 2003, highlighted complaints against Sheriff Zaldivar for failing to adequately fulfill his responsibilities. The complainant indicated that Zaldivar was assigned 416 writs of various kinds but had only submitted returns for 187 writs. To substantiate these claims, Judge Badoles-Algodon detailed multiple instances of Zaldivar's failures in executing writs.

Significant cases referenced included Civil Case No. C-DEC-1135 involving the Northern Mindanao Sales Corporation, where Zaldivar received P3,000 from the judgment debtor but failed to remit this amount to the plaintiff. In another instance involving Anflo Motor Corporation in Civil Case No. C-Jun-4

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• An administrative complaint was filed by Complainant Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon against Sheriff III Rene D. Zaldivar of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City.
• The complaint, dated 24 February 2003, charged the respondent sheriff with gross neglect of duty and dishonesty for his alleged failure to properly execute court writs and file the corresponding returns.

Allegations against the Respondent Sheriff

• Complainant Judge alleged that from a total of 416 writs issued, only 187 returns were filed, indicating a failure to perform his duties.
• Specific instances highlighted include:
• The Northern Mindanao Sales Corporation v. Roger Mole case where a writ of execution was issued on 19 July 2002, yet respondent failed to implement the writ despite receiving P3,000 from the judgment debtor, as evidenced by handwritten receipts.
• The Anflo Motor Corporation v. Spouses Rogelio and Cecille Bucais case, where a writ issued on 22 December 2000 remained unsatisfied, prompting a directive for immediate enforcement and explanation within 72 hours.
• The People v. Balbino Privaldos criminal case in which only one report was filed for a writ of execution issued in September 2001, despite the writ remaining unsatisfied.

Investigative Proceedings and Additional Allegations

• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required the respondent sheriff to comment on the charges, to which he replied on 30 May 2003.
• In his reply, he admitted the issuance of 416 writs but denied submitting only 187 returns, claiming that some were implemented and submitted separately and that several writs were issued outside his jurisdiction.
• Judge Edgardo T. Lloren conducted an investigation on 30 May 2003, resulting in a report recommending the filing of administrative and criminal charges against the respondent.
• The investigation included new charges based on additional cases that emerged after the initial complaint, which were not previously presented by the complainant judge, thus raising concerns about the respondent’s right to due process.
• The OCA’s Report dated 15 April 2004 further recommended dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits (except accrued leave credits), emphasizing:
• Gross misconduct for the failure to file returns for 229 writs.
• Dishonesty amounting to misappropriation or conversion of funds, in violation of the Revised Penal Code.

Specific Discrepancies and Procedural Irregularities

• Complainant Judge failed to present copies or a list of the 229 writs alleged to be unreturned, placing the burden of proof on her claims without substantial evidence.
• The introduction of four new cases during Judge Lloren’s investigation, which were not originally in the complaint, was noted as highly improper for depriving the respondent sheriff of his due process rights.
• The absence of consistent periodic reporting, as mandated by the Rules of Civil Procedure, further underscored the respondent’s alleged neglect and unprofessional conduct.

Issue:

Due Process and Evidentiary Concerns

• Whether the introduction of new cases and charges during the investigation deprived the respondent of his right to due process.
• Whether the allegations regarding the 229 unreturned writs were sufficiently substantiated by evidence.

Duty and Performance in the Execution of Writs

• Whether the respondent sheriff’s failure to implement and file returns on a significant number of writs amounts to gross neglect of duty.
• Whether his conduct in failing to turn over funds collected (e.g., in the Northern Mindanao case) constitutes dishonesty and misappropriation under the law.

Applicability of Procedural Rules

• Whether the mandatory requirements of Section 14, Rule 39 and Section 9(a), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were clearly violated by the respondent sheriff.
• The extent to which the absence of proper periodic reports impacted the administration and enforcement of the judgments.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)