Case Digest (A.M. No. R-494-P)
Facts:
Hon. Vicente P. Sibulo v. Ernesto Ramirez, Adm. Matter No. R-494-P, September 17, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The resolution was concurred in by Teehankee, C.J., and Justices Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes.The complaint was initiated by Judge Vicente P. Sibulo in an Order dated August 8, 1983, charging his former deputy sheriff, Ernesto Ramirez, with acts that directly or indirectly impeded and obstructed the administration of justice. The underlying substantive event was the writ of execution issued October 15, 1981, for which a return was ordered within ten days; the sheriff received the writ on March 9, 1982, but did not make a return for over a year.
Following the judge’s March 1, 1982 order and a subsequent March 18, 1983 order requiring compliance and directing the sheriff to show cause for contempt, Ramirez failed to act. On August 4, 1983 Ramirez filed an Officer’s Return of Service purporting to show the return was made March 29, 1983; the record showed this to be false. Judge Sibulo referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Legazpi, who ordered Ramirez to explain his conduct, granted extensions when requested, and ultimately set a final deadline (October 21, 1983) warning that failure to answer would prompt a recommendation for disciplinary action.
After Ramirez did not submit any explanation, the Executive Judge referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator and thence to the Supreme Court as an administrative disciplinary matter (Adm. Matter No. R-494-P). The Court examined the record and found that Ramirez, as an officer of the court, had a mandatory duty under Sec. 11, Rule 39, Rules of Court to make a return within the prescribed period; that he willfully disregarded court orders; that he falsified an official return; and that his conduct fell within disciplinary grounds under Sec. 36, P.D. 807. Citing precedents including ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent’s failure to make a timely return of the writ of execution, his persistent refusal to answer court orders, and his falsification of the Officer’s Return constitute serious misconduct or other disciplinary offenses warranting sanction?
- If so, is dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefit...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)