Gonzales v. Calo

A.M. No. P-12-3028 (April 11, 2012)

Sheriff Arthur G. Calo was fined P20,000 for misconduct, neglect, and abuse of authority.

Facts:

In a verified complaint dated May 2, 2011, Attorneys Ricardo D. Gonzalez and Ernesto D. Rosales, representing the Rural Bank of Cabadbaran (Agusan), Inc., filed charges against Arthur G. Calo, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Butuan City. The complaint alleged grave abuse of authority, falsification, arrogance, grave misconduct, and gross dishonesty related to the implementation of a writ of possession in Special Proceeding No. 4808.

The writ of possession, issued on January 12, 2011, directed Sheriff Calo to immediately place the Rural Bank in possession of a property and eject all occupants. The complainants claimed that instead of coordinating with them, as was customary, Sheriff Calo failed to communicate regarding the implementation of the writ. To facilitate the process, the complainants provided him with P1,000.00 for expenses. Despite this, Sheriff Calo did not respond to their inquiries about the implementation costs, prompting multiple letters from complainant Gonzalez urging action.

On March 14, 2011, the complainants learned that Sheriff Calo had filed a Sheriff’s Report, dated February 18, 2011, but submitted only on March 4, 2011. The report claimed that the writ was served on January 24, 2011, and that the occupants requested time to vacate, which Sheriff Calo granted for three months. This led complainant Gonzalez to file an Omnibus Motion to Inhibit Sheriff Calo from further implementing the writ, citing a breakdown in their working relationship.

Despite the pending motion, Sheriff Calo proceeded to implement the writ on April 25, 2011, without notifying the complainants. The bank manager, Ms. Hanie De Jesus, informed him of her intention to contact complainant Gonzalez, but Sheriff Calo refused to wait. After implementing the writ, he demanded an additional P1,000.00 for expenses, which Ms. De Jesus felt compelled to pay.

The complainants contended that while the occupants vacated the premises, a room containing their personal belongings was padlocked, indicating that the writ was not fully executed. They also alleged that Sheriff Calo's demand for money violated the Rules of Court, which restrict sheriffs from accepting payments without court approval.

In response, Sheriff Calo submitted a comment denying the allegations, asserting that his actions were motivated by compassion for the occupants and that he had not extorted any money. He claimed that the P1,000.00 received was for legitimate expenses and that he had complied with the necessary procedures.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and found Sheriff Calo guilty of neglect of duty and grave misconduct, recommending a fine of P10,000.00, considering his long service and lack of prior infractions.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did Sheriff Calo commit grave abuse of authority and misconduct in the implementation of the writ of possession?
  2. Was Sheriff Calo's acceptance of money for expenses in violation of the Rules of Court?
  3. What penalties are appropriate for the alleged misconduct?

Arguments:

  • Complainants' Arguments:

    • Sheriff Calo failed to coordinate with them, which is customary in implementing writs.
    • He unilaterally extended the time for occupants to vacate, contrary to the Rules of Court.
    • His demand for money without prior court approval constituted extortion and misconduct.
    • The writ was not fully implemented as personal belongings were left behind.
  • Respondent's Arguments:

    • Sheriff Calo claimed his actions were compassionate and within his discretion.
    • He argued that the P1,000.00 received was for legitimate expenses and not extortion.
    • He maintained that he complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court regarding the implementation of the writ.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court agreed with the OCA's findings that Sheriff Calo was guilty of neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming a court employee. The court emphasized that the duties of a sheriff in executing a writ of possession are ministerial and not discretionary. The Rules of Court require sheriffs to act promptly and to follow specific procedures, including notifying parties and filing timely reports.

The court found that Sheriff Calo overstepped his authority by granting the occupants an extended period to vacate the property, which violated the mandatory three-day notice requirement. Additionally, he failed to file a timely return on the writ, which is essential for keeping the court and parties informed of the proceedings.

The court also highlighted that accepting payments without court approval is a serious violation of the Rules of Court. The court noted that even if the payments were made in good faith, the lack of adherence to procedural requirements raised suspicions of impropriety.

In determining the penalty, the court considered previous cases involving similar violations and concluded that a fine of P20,000.00 was appropriate, to be deducted from Sheriff Calo's retirement benefits, given the severity of the misconduct and his failure to uphold the standards expected of court employees.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The duties of sheriffs in executing writs of possession are strictly ministerial and must be performed in accordance with the Rules of Court.
  2. Sheriffs are prohibited from accepting payments for expenses without prior court approval, and any deviation from this rule can lead to administrative liability.
  3. Conduct unbecoming a court employee includes failing to cooperate with litigants and disregarding established procedures, which undermines the integrity of the judiciary.