G.R. No. 168240 - Go vs. Sunbanun

Complainant Domingo Peaa, Jr. filed a complaint on April 2, 2007, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) regarding the conduct of Sheriff IV Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II.
The complaint arose from the implementation of the writ of execution connected to People v. Domingo Peaa, Jr. and Domingo Francisco (Criminal Case No. 1852 for Falsification of Public Documents).
The underlying judgment required Peaa, Jr. and Domingo Francisco to each pay a fine of P5,000.00 and P30,000.00 in damages to private complainant Flora Francisco.

Complainant alleged that the sheriff collected payments on three separate occasions:

Instead of issuing official receipts for these collections, respondent issued handwritten acknowledgement receipts, which were attached to the complaint as Exhibits “A,” “B,” and “C.”

Respondent admitted to receiving the amounts and claimed to have delivered them to Mrs. Flora Francisco.
He explained that on September 6, 2006, he went to Francisco’s house to give her the P13,000.00 after receiving it from the complainant; when she was not present, he returned the following day.
The two succeeding amounts (P4,500.00 and P2,000.00) were similarly collected at the complainant’s house, and respondent stated that he immediately delivered these sums to Francisco.
He argued that the complaint was an act of harassment intended to prevent him from executing the judgment against the complainant.

During the investigation by Judge Jaime E. Contreras, Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, the complainant testified that he only received handwritten provisional receipts and acknowledged that he was aware that the money had been given to Francisco.
Complainant further indicated that due to health concerns, he had lost interest in pursuing the case beyond initial proceedings.
Respondent’s testimony confirmed the receipt of funds but showed discrepancies regarding the timing of the disbursement to Francisco.
Francisco’s testimony contradicted respondent’s claim on the latter two payments, stating she received the P13,000.00 on September 6, 2006, but did not receive the P4,500.00 and P2,000.00 on the dates indicated; she signed acknowledgment receipts based on promises made by the respondent to return on a later date.
Francesco’s subsequent written complaint, addressed to Judge Contreras on June 20, 2007, detailed the failure of respondent to complete the disbursement promptly.

Judge Contreras, after reviewing the evidence and testimonies, found that respondent failed to comply with the mandatory procedures in executing the writ of execution.
The judge noted that this incident was the respondent’s second offense of a similar nature, evidencing a pattern of irregular practices over his 12-year tenure.
Judge Contreras recommended that respondent be suspended for 15 days from service without pay and warned of more severe penalties in the event of recurrence.
The matter was then referred by the Regional Trial Court to the OCA for further evaluation and recommendation.

In a resolution dated September 2, 2009, and a subsequent memorandum on January 7, 2010, the OCA evaluated the case and found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
The OCA had originally recommended dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and permanent disqualification from re-employment.
The Court, however, modified the penalty prescribed by the OCA, emphasizing that the administrative proceeding must proceed despite the complainant’s disinterest, in order to uphold public confidence in the judicial system.

The Rules of Court, particularly Section 9, Rule 39, were highlighted regarding the proper execution of money judgments.
Specific emphasis was placed on:

The requirement for immediate payment and issuance of official receipts.
The obligation of the sheriff to remit funds to the clerk of court on the same day or deposit them in a designated fiduciary account.

The respondent’s failure to issue official receipts and his deviation from the procedure were seen to be in violation of Section 113, Article III, Chapter V of the National Accounting and Auditing Manual.
The misconduct was thus contextualized as prejudicial to the best interest of the service and an affront to public accountability standards.

Whether the respondent, as an officer of the court, violated the mandatory procedural rules in executing a writ of execution by failing to:

Whether the discrepancies in the timing and manner of disbursement of the collected funds—stemming from conflicting testimonies—were sufficient to establish misconduct and dishonesty.

Whether the act of remitting funds directly to Francisco, based on respondent’s personal initiative and convenience—even if motivated by good faith—justifies deviation from uniform procedural rules mandated by the Rules of Court.

Whether the administrative issue should be pursued and penal action imposed despite the complainant’s expressed apathy and decision not to actively pursue the case further.

Whether the respondent’s admission of following similar non-standard procedures in prior cases constitutes a pattern of conduct that justifies a graver sanction.