A.M. No. P-04-1818 - Badoles-Algodon vs. Zaldivar

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-04-1818)

Factual Background

The complainant judge alleged that, based on court records, respondent sheriff received 416 writs of various kinds but made returns only for 187. To illustrate the alleged misconduct, the complainant judge cited three specific cases.

In Civil Case No. C-DEC-1135, entitled Northern Mindanao Sales Corporation v. Roger Mole, the court issued the writ of execution on 19 July 2002 and assigned it to respondent sheriff. On receipt of a motion dated 14 February 2003 requiring an explanation for indirect contempt due to failure to implement the writ and failure to file the monthly sheriff’s report, the court later learned that the judgment debtor had already paid P3,000 to the respondent sheriff, evidenced by handwritten receipts issued by him. The respondent sheriff did not turn over the amount to the plaintiff, prompting the complainant judge to issue an order dated 28 February 2003 citing respondent sheriff for contempt and recommending suspension and dismissal for gross neglect of duty and dishonesty, with an instruction to immediately turn over the money to the plaintiff.

In Civil Case No. C-Jun-405, entitled Anflo Motor Corporation v. Spouses Rogelio and Cecille Bucais, the court issued a writ of execution on 22 December 2000. On 11 February 2003, the plaintiff’s counsel wrote respondent sheriff because the writ remained unsatisfied. The complainant judge then issued a memorandum directing respondent sheriff to enforce the writ immediately and to explain within 72 hours why no administrative action should be taken. The respondent sheriff claimed that he had already taken action but that the auction sale was postponed because the plaintiff failed to submit the initial bid.

In Criminal Case Nos. M-337 and M-338, entitled People v. Balbino Privaldos, the court issued the writ of execution in September 2001. In February 2003, private counsel manifested that the judgment remained unsatisfied, while respondent sheriff had filed only one report dated 3 September 2002. The respondent sheriff later admitted that the writ was not implemented because the accused had no real or personal property in his name and had stopped residing at the address given.

Initiation of Administrative Proceedings and Investigation

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through its 1st Indorsement dated 31 March 2003, required respondent sheriff to comment on the letter-complaint. In his comment dated 30 May 2003, respondent sheriff admitted that 416 writs were assigned to him. He denied that he only made returns for 187. He stated that he implemented some of the writs and submitted them to the court, but he surmised that they were not attached to the records because he was not responsible for record keeping. He also claimed that some writs were to be implemented outside his jurisdiction.

After referral to Judge Edgardo T. Lloren, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Cagayan de Oro City, for investigation, report, and recommendation, Judge Lloren conducted an investigation on 30 May 2003. The complainant judge presented her evidence ex parte because respondent sheriff failed to appear despite proper notice. Judge Lloren recommended filing administrative and criminal charges.

In the second indorsement, Judge Lloren reported findings supporting the allegations that respondent sheriff failed to make returns and failed to properly account for and turn over proceeds received. Judge Lloren also discussed instances reflected in his report, including returns and receipts purportedly showing that amounts were received yet not properly delivered or accounted for, and referenced other filings and letters that reflected dissatisfaction with the sheriff’s performance.

OCA Recommendation and the Court’s Preliminary Procedural Correction

In its Report dated 15 April 2004, the OCA recommended dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The OCA treated the first allegation as gross misconduct for failure to make returns for 229 writs, and treated the second allegation as dishonesty and a violation of Article 315(b) of the Revised Penal Code, premised on misappropriation or conversion of money or property received in trust or under obligation to deliver or return.

Before deciding the case on its merits, the Court identified a serious procedural defect. It noted that, aside from the Northern Mindanao case, the cases later discussed in Judge Lloren’s report and in the OCA’s report were not the same as those mentioned in the original letter-complaint. It held that the presentation of these additional cases without proper notice deprived respondent sheriff of due process, because he was not informed of the new charges, did not have the opportunity to answer the new accusations, confront the complainant judge, or present evidence in his favor.

Accordingly, the Court limited its discussion to the allegation that respondent sheriff failed to execute and make returns for 229 writs, and to the three cases mentioned in the letter-complaint. For the other cases, it directed the OCA to conduct further investigation to determine administrative liability.

The Parties’ Contentions on the Writs and Returns

On the allegation of failure to execute and file returns for 229 writs, respondent sheriff denied liability. The Court observed that the complainant judge claimed that copies of the writs would be made available upon proper investigation, but the Court found that she did not present copies of the writs, and no list of these writs was prepared and submitted as evidence during Judge Lloren’s investigation.

Applying the rule that in administrative proceedings the complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence, the Court held that mere allegations were not evidence and not equivalent to proof. It therefore found no basis in the records showing that respondent sheriff failed to execute and file returns for 229 writs, and it declined to hold him liable on that particular allegation due to lack of substantiation.

Findings on the Three Cited Cases: Failure to Implement Writs and the Omission of Returns and Reports

On the three cases mentioned in the letter-complaint, the Court found that respondent sheriff failed—without justifiable reasons—to implement the writs of execution. It further held that his behavior showed undue disregard of his duties and functions as a sheriff, underscoring the central role of sheriffs in the execution of final judgments.

On the issue of returns and reporting, the Court noted that respondent sheriff did not properly address the failure to file returns in the relevant cases. His silence, where he had a chance to deny or explain, was treated as admission, especially because the matter constituted one of the principal charges. The Court also emphasized that periodic reporting served to inform the court and litigants and to ensure speedy execution of decisions.

Governing Rules on Periodic Reporting and Return of Writs

The Court applied Section 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which required a sheriff to return the writ immediately after the judgment was satisfied in part or in full and, if not satisfied within thirty (30) days from receipt, to report to the court and state the reasons. It also required the officer to file a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken until full satisfaction or expiry of the writ’s effectivity, with the returns or reports detailing the entire proceedings taken and being filed with the court and furnished to the parties.

The Court held that these requirements were mandatory, even when the writ was unsatisfied or only partially satisfied. It reasoned that periodic reporting was necessary so that the court and litigants could be informed of the sheriff’s actions. It concluded that respondent sheriff’s reports, if any, were submitted sporadically, and that the long delay in execution and failure to file the required periodic reports demonstrated gross neglect and gross inefficiency.

Dishonesty in the Northern Mindanao Case and Treatment of Partial Payments

In the Northern Mindanao case, the Court found that respondent sheriff received a total of P3,000 from the judgment debtor and failed to turn it over to the judgment creditor. Respondent sheriff claimed that he had a right to receive “partial or full payment” after serving the writ. The Court, however, treated the handwritten receipts as reflecting partial deposits or partial payments, and it characterized the money as entrusted by the judgment debtor to respondent sheriff for a specific purpose: satisfying the judgment debt.

Under Section 9(a), Rule 39 of the Rules, the officer was required to enforce execution by demanding immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ and to ensure that payments were made under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or authorized representative if present, or delivered to the executing sheriff if not. The executing sheriff was then required to turn over the amounts within the same day to the clerk of court issuing the writ, or, if impracticable, to deposit the amounts to a fiduciary account in a nearest government depository bank.

The Court held that respondent sheriff’s receipt of the money in an official capacity and his failure to turn over the amount to the judgment creditor or the clerk of court constituted misappropriation of funds amounting to dishonesty. It also held that his failure to issue official receipts violated the General Auditing and Accounting Rules. It further found that he did not file a Sheriff’s Return relative to the writ’s implementation and his receipt of the money.

Penalty Determination Based on the Civil Service Rules

The Court considered the effect of multiple charges under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, stating that if

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-04-1818)

The case involved an administrative complaint against Sheriff III Rene D. Zaldivar, assigned to Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City, for gross neglect of duty and dishonesty.
Complainant judge, Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon, filed the complaint through a letter-complaint dated 24 February 2003 alleging neglectful and dishonest conduct in the handling of writs of execution and related duties.
The Supreme Court resolved the matter en banc through a Decision per curiam, ultimately dismissing the respondent from the service.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainant judge was the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City.
Respondent sheriff was the Sheriff III of the same court branch.
The complaint was anchored on alleged derelictions in the execution and reporting of writs of various kinds, including writs of execution.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to comment through a 1st Indorsement dated 31 March 2003.
The OCA referred the matter for investigation to Judge Edgardo T. Lloren, Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City, for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In his 2nd Indorsement dated 6 June 2003, Judge Lloren reported that he conducted an investigation on 30 May 2003.
Complainant judge presented evidence ex-parte because respondent sheriff failed to appear despite proper notice.
The OCA later issued a Report dated 15 April 2004, recommending dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment.
The Supreme Court, however, narrowed the adjudication due to due process concerns, and proceeded only on the allegations supported and within the scope properly ventilated.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant judge alleged that respondent sheriff received four hundred sixteen (416) writs but made returns only for one hundred eighty-seven (187) writs.
The complaint singled out deficiencies in execution and reporting and cited specific cases to illustrate alleged wrongdoing.
In Civil Case No. C-DEC-1135 (Northern Mindanao Sales Corporation v. Roger Mole), the court issued a writ of execution on 19 July 2002 and assigned it to respondent sheriff.
In that case, complainant judge received a motion dated 14 February 2003 seeking indirect contempt for respondent sheriff’s failure to implement the writ and to file the monthly sheriff’s report.
The court learned that the judgment debtor had paid P3,000 to respondent sheriff, evidenced by handwritten receipts issued by respondent sheriff, but the sheriff allegedly failed to turn over the amount to the plaintiff.
In Civil Case No. C-DEC-1135, complainant judge issued an order dated 28 February 2003 citing respondent sheriff for contempt and recommending suspension and dismissal for gross neglect of duty and dishonesty, while ordering immediate turnover of the amount.
In Civil Case No. C-Jun-405 (Anflo Motor Corporation v. Spouses Rogelio and Cecille Bucais), the court issued a writ of execution on 22 December 2000.
In that case, plaintiff’s counsel wrote respondent sheriff on 11 February 2003 because the writ remained unsatisfied.
Complainant judge issued a memorandum directing immediate enforcement of the writ and requiring an explanation within 72 hours why no administrative disciplinary action should be taken.
In Criminal Case Nos. M-337 and M-338 (People v. Balbino Privaldos), the court issued a writ of execution in September 2001.
By February 2003, private counsel manifested that the judgment remained unsatisfied and noted that respondent sheriff filed only one report dated 3 September 2002.
In response to the OCA’s directive, respondent sheriff admitted that 416 writs were assigned to him but denied that he had only made returns for 187, asserting that he had implemented some writs and submitted them to the court.
Respondent sheriff attributed missing attachments to record-keeping, asserted that some writs were to be implemented outside his jurisdiction, and offered case-specific explanations for each cited incident.

Due Process Limitations

The Supreme Court noted that, except for the Northern Mindanao case, the cases discussed in Judge Lloren’s report and later in the OCA’s report were different from the cases mentioned in the letter-complaint.
The Court considered it improper that new cases and allegations were introduced in the investigation and report, because it deprived respondent sheriff of the right to due process.
The OCA’s theory that respondent sheriff’s failure to appear in the investigation amounted to waiver of rights was rejected.
The Court held that respondent sheriff might have chosen not to appear because he believed he had already satisfactorily answered the charges, and thus he should not have been deemed to have waived due process regarding new charges.
The Court determined that respondent sheriff was not informed of the new charges and was not given the opportunity to answer them, confront complainant judge, or present favorable evidence.
Accordingly, the Court limited its discussion to the allegation that respondent sheriff failed to execute and make returns for two hundred twenty-nine (229) writs, and to the three cases mentioned in the letter-complaint, rather than the additional matters raised later.

Issues for Resolution

The Court had to determine whether complainant judge proved by substantial evidence that respondent sheriff failed to execute and file returns for 229 writs.
The Court also had to determine whether respondent sheriff, without justifiable reasons, failed to implement the writs in the cited cases and whether such failure constituted gross neglect of duty and/or gross inefficiency.
The