Case Digest (G.R. No. 194139)
Facts:
In the case of Felisa L. Gonzales vs. Clerk of Court Joseph N. Escalona and Sheriff IV Edgar V. Superada, Felisa L. Gonzales (complainant) filed a verified complaint for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Grave Misconduct against the respondents. The case originated from the enforcement of a writ of execution for damages awarded in Criminal Case No. 2150, where the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Carigara, Leyte, convicted Paterno Makipig, Jr. for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries. The RTC awarded P300,040.00 to Gonzales for the wrongful death of her son, Bienvenido, along with additional damages to other victims totaling P29,020.00. The RTC issued a writ of execution, tasking respondent Edgar V. Superada, a sheriff, to enforce the judgment. Since the accused was insolvent, the award was directed against his employer, Serafica Enterprises, represented by Herminigildo Serafica, who consented to pay the awarded damages
Case Digest (G.R. No. 194139)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- A verified complaint was filed for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Grave Misconduct linked to the enforcement of a writ of execution in Criminal Case No. 2150.
- The case involved the liquidation of a judgment awarding damages for the death of Bienvenido, the son of complainant Felisa L. Gonzales, among other accident victims.
- Parties Involved
- Complainant: Felisa L. Gonzales.
- Respondents:
- Atty. Joseph N. Escalona – then Branch Clerk of Court; later resigned.
- Edgar V. Superada – then Sheriff IV; later deceased.
- Context and Execution of Judgment
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte, had convicted the accused in a vehicular accident case and awarded damages:
- P300,040.00 to Felisa L. Gonzales for her son’s death.
- A total of P29,020.00 to other victims.
- Since the accused was insolvent, the judgment was enforced on the accused’s employer, Serafica Enterprises, which had agreed to pay the damages within six months.
- Allegations and Irregularities
- Prior to the issuance of the writ of execution, respondent Superada allegedly demanded P27,500.00 from the complainant for writ-serving expenses, of which she managed to give only P7,000.00.
- Without the complainant’s consent, both respondents accepted from Serafica twenty-four postdated checks (totaling P329,060.00) made payable to respondent Escalona.
- Each check was for the amount of P13,710.85.
- The checks were dated from April 7, 2000, to January 31, 2002.
- On the encashment of the checks, respondent Escalona deducted:
- P3,000.00 for sheriff’s fees.
- P1,400.00 allegedly for the use of his vehicle in traveling to the Land Bank-Ormoc City branch office.
- Comments submitted by respondents:
- Respondent Escalona denied instructing or proposing that the postdated checks be made payable to him, attributing the arrangement solely to Serafica’s decision.
- Respondent Superada admitted receiving P7,000.00 but contended that it was for covering expenses for the apprehension of the accused, and he maintained that his actions were within the scope of his duties as executing sheriff.
- Investigation and Findings
- The case was referred for investigation by Executive Judge Lourdes G. Blanco after recommendations from the then Deputy Court Administrator.
- The Investigating Judge’s report noted:
- Non-compliance by respondent Superada with the procedural requirements under Section 9, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court on implementing writs of execution.
- No satisfactory explanation for why the postdated checks were issued in Escalona’s name instead of the complainant or directly to an approved receipt channel.
- The evidence suggested a connivance between both respondents to collect and disburse funds for their personal benefit from the proceeds of the court’s award.
Issues:
- Alleged Unauthorized Exactions and Misconduct
- Whether respondent Superada improperly demanded and received money (P27,500.00 demanded and P7,000.00 received) without proper authority or court approval.
- The propriety of deducting excessive amounts (sums for sheriff’s fees and alleged vehicular expenses) from the encashed postdated checks.
- Legitimacy of the Arrangement on Payment of Checks
- Whether it was permissible for the employer, Serafica Enterprises, to issue 24 postdated checks made payable to respondent Escalona without the complainant’s consent.
- Whether the respondents’ actions in accepting and endorsing such checks violated prescribed procedures for the execution of writs.
- Application and Interpretation of Relevant Rules and Procedures
- Whether the respondents complied with Section 9, Rule 11 and Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court concerning the collection and disbursement of sheriff’s expenses.
- Whether the administrative and ethical standards expected of public officers were met in the handling of the funds and execution process.
- Impact of Resignation and Death on Administrative Liability
- Whether the resignation of Atty. Escalona or the death of Sheriff Superada exonerates them from administrative liability.
- The extent to which administrative proceedings may continue against a deceased public officer.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)