A.M. No. R-494-P - Sibulo vs. Ramirez

Case Summary (A.M. No. R-494-P)

Factual Background

The Court required the respondent, Deputy Provincial Sheriff Ernesto Ramirez, to make a return within ten (10) days from receipt of the order of execution dated October 15, 1981. The respondent received the court order on March 9, 1982, yet he failed to submit the return within the period required. The record showed that more than one year had elapsed without a complete return being made, in disregard of the order of the court.

Trial Court Orders and Requests for Compliance

In an effort to compel compliance, the complainant obtained an Order dated March 18, 1983 directing the respondent to comply with the earlier Order dated March 1, 1982 and to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for ignoring the court order. Despite these directives, the respondent still did not comply, prompting further court action requiring him to comply with the orders dated March 18, 1983 and March 1, 1982.

The Officer’s Return and the Misrepresentation

On August 4, 1983, the respondent filed an Officer’s Return of Service. The return made it appear that the return had been made effective March 29, 1983. However, the resolution later characterized the respondent’s act as a falsification of the Officer’s Return of Service, because the stated date did not reflect the truth of when the return was actually made.

Referral to the Executive Judge and Failure to File Explanation

In the Order dated August 8, 1983, the complainant referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Legazpi for appropriate action. The Executive Judge required the respondent to submit his explanation. The respondent requested extensions of time, which were granted in an Order dated September 7, 1983, and another motion for extension was likewise granted. Despite these accommodations, the respondent did not submit his explanation. The Executive Judge then issued an Order dated October 15, 1983, directing the respondent to file his explanation on or before October 21, 1983, with the warning that failure to comply would constrain the office to recommend disciplinary action to the Supreme Court. The respondent still failed to comply completely, and the refusal persisted up to the time the complaint was resolved.

Procedural Outcome Before the Supreme Court

Because of the respondent’s continued noncompliance and the Executive Judge’s referral through the Office of the Court Administrator, the Court reviewed the matter and found ample evidence to support the severe penalty of dismissal. The resolution emphasized not only the initial failure to file the return within the required period, but also the respondent’s persistent disregard of legal orders and his refusal to explain his conduct despite repeated directives.

The Parties’ Position and the Case Theory

The record, as presented in the resolution, did not show that the respondent offered any substantive defense. Instead, the narrative underscored that the respondent persistently disregarded orders requiring him to comply with his duties, including orders to show cause and orders compelling him to explain the charge. The Court treated the respondent’s acts as willful and compounded by falsification, obstinate defiance of orders, and continued silence when called upon to account for his behavior.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that the respondent’s duty as a sheriff included the obligation to serve and to make a return of a writ of execution to the proper court official “at any time not less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days after its receipt”, under Sec. 11, Rule 39, Rules of Court. The Court characterized the rule as mandatory, leaving the sheriff without discretion whether to execute the obligation or make the return within the period provided by law and by the court’s directives. It further found that the respondent’s failure to make the return within the prescribed period amounted to a willful disregard of the court’s authority, since he ignored multiple court orders directing compliance, including an order requiring him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.

The Court then addressed the falsity in the respondent’s attempt at compliance. It held that when the respondent later decided to comply, he did so by falsifying the Officer’s Return of Service, stating a return date of March 29, 1983 when, according to the Court, that was not the actual date. The resolution also treated the respondent’s conduct as insolent defiance of the Executive Judge’s orders. It specifically referred to the August 31, 1983 Executive Judge order requiring an explanation within seventy-two (72) hours, and the October 15, 1983 order giving the respondent until October 21, 1983 to answer, both of which were ignored.

The Court further linked the respondent’s acts to the grounds for disciplinary action under Sec. 36 of P.D. 807, noting that his behavior could fall under dishonesty, misconduct, being notoriously undesirable, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, falsification of official document, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It also relied on prior jur

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. R-494-P)

Hon. Vicente P. Sibulo filed an administrative complaint against Ernesto Ramirez, a former deputy sheriff, for acts that allegedly impeded and obstructed the administration of justice.
The proceeding was treated as an administrative matter and ultimately resolved by the Court en banc.
The Court adjudged Ernesto Ramirez administratively liable and imposed the penalty of dismissal.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Judge Vicente P. Sibulo, as complainant, initiated the complaint against his former deputy sheriff Ernesto Ramirez, as respondent.
The complaint originated in an Order dated August 8, 1983 issued by the RTC, directing the matter to be referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Legazpi.
The Executive Judge required respondent to submit an explanation and granted the respondent’s requests for extensions.
Despite repeated orders and extensions, respondent failed to submit his explanation even after the Executive Judge’s final admonition.
The Executive Judge referred the matter to the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator for final action.
The Court en banc found ample evidence on record warranting the “drastic penalty of dismissal.”

Key Factual Allegations

Respondent was required by the Court, through an Order issued on March 1, 1982, to make a return within ten (10) days from receipt of a writ of execution issued on October 15, 1981.
The Court received proof that respondent received the Order on March 9, 1982 yet failed to make the required return.
The complaint alleged that more than one (1) year elapsed from March 9, 1982 without a complete return, in disregard of the Court’s directives.
The RTC issued a March 18, 1983 Order directing respondent to comply with the earlier directive and to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for ignoring the Order.
The complaint asserted that respondent continued to fail to comply, compelling further court action for enforcement.
On August 4, 1983, respondent filed an Officer’s Return of Service asserting that the return was made as of March 29, 1983.
The Court treated the alleged falsity as established by the record and found that respondent did not actually make the return on March 29, 1983.
The complaint further alleged that respondent defied at least two orders of the Executive Judge requiring an administrative explanation.
The first Executive Judge order required respondent to explain within 72 hours why he should not be charged administratively for acts that tended to impede or obstruct the administration of justice and for wilful disregard of lawful court orders.
The second Executive Judge order gave respondent until October 21, 1983 to answer and warned that disciplinary action would be recommended if he failed to comply.
Even after the final deadline, respondent continued to disobey, including up to the time the case was submitted for resolution.

Governing Rules and Legal Duties

The Court identified the duty of a sheriff to serve and to make a return of a writ as regulated by the Rules of Court.
The Court cited Sec. 11, Rule 39, Rules of Court, which provides that the officer must make the return “to the clerk or judge of the court issuing it,” within not less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days after receipt of the writ.
The Court characterized the rule as mandatory, leaving the sheriff no discretion whether to execute and make a return within the prescribed period.
The Court held that respondent’s persistent failure to comply with the Court’s orders constituted willful disregard of judicial authority.
The Court also held that deputy sheriff personnel are covered by the Civil Service law, particularly the Article on Discipline.
The Court referenced Sec. 36, P.D. 807, including enumerated grounds for discipline relevant to dishonesty, misconduct, being notoriously undesirable, inefficiency and incompetence, falsification of official document, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Issues for Resolution

The Court determined whether respondent committed serious administrative viol