Nique v. Hernandez

A.M. No. MTJ-94-965 (April 2, 1996)

Nique's complaint vs. Judge Hernandez, Deputy Sheriff Penas dismissed, stressing court official accountability.

Facts:

In an affidavit-complaint dated May 22, 1993, Licerio P. Nique charged Judge Priscilla T. Hernandez, then Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tangub City, and Deputy Sheriff Jose C. Penas with several offenses, including Ignorance of the Law, Partisanship in the Enforcement of a Court Order, Dereliction of Duty, and Failure to Account for a P1,000.00 deposit related to the enforcement of a writ of preliminary injunction issued on August 16, 1991. The injunction was part of a petition for certiorari filed by Nique against the private respondents.

Nique alleged that Judge Hernandez improperly delegated the implementation of the writ to Deputy Sheriff Penas, who failed to restore Nique's peaceful possession of a fishpond in Baybay Sumirap, thus rendering the P1,000.00 deposit for sheriff's fees worthless. Nique's attorney-in-fact, Cesar Canones, supported this claim, stating that he was instructed to sign a receipt only for the fishpond and refused to sign for other items like fish feeds and equipment.

In their responses, both Hernandez and Penas defended their actions. Hernandez stated that it was standard practice for deputy sheriffs to implement court writs, and Penas claimed he had successfully executed the writ by transferring possession of the fishpond to Canones. Penas also provided a Return of Service and an itinerary detailing the expenses incurred during the execution of the writ.

Nique later accused Penas of falsifying a public document by mislabeling expenses in his itinerary. The case was referred to Acting Executive Judge Vicente T. Baz for investigation, where it was found that Nique failed to cross-examine the respondents, leading to a lack of substantial evidence against them.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Judge Hernandez improperly delegated her duty to implement the writ of preliminary injunction to Deputy Sheriff Penas.
  2. Whether Deputy Sheriff Penas failed to account for the P1,000.00 deposit and whether he falsified public documents in his itinerary of travel.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Nique):

    • Alleged that Judge Hernandez's delegation of the writ's implementation was improper.
    • Claimed that Penas failed to restore his possession of the fishpond, rendering the deposit worthless.
    • Accused Penas of falsifying the itinerary by mislabeling expenses.

  • Respondents (Hernandez and Penas):

    • Argued that delegating the implementation of writs to deputy sheriffs is standard practice and within their jurisdiction.
    • Maintained that Penas successfully executed the writ and accounted for the deposit through a detailed itinerary.
    • Contended that the use of the term "car hire" in the itinerary was justified as it encompassed expenses for gasoline and repairs of the police vehicle used.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court dismissed the complaint against both respondents for lack of merit. It found that:

  1. The delegation of the implementation of the writ by Judge Hernandez to Deputy Sheriff Penas was proper and consistent with established practices for clerks of court and their deputies.
  2. Penas adequately accounted for the P1,000.00 deposit through his itinerary, which included itemized expenses related to the execution of the writ.
  3. The claim of falsification was unfounded, as Penas provided a satisfactory explanation for the terminology used in his itinerary, which was corroborated by police witnesses.

The court emphasized the importance of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs in the administration of justice, noting that they must execute their duties with due care and diligence. The findings of the Investigating Judge were upheld, and the respondents were exonerated from all charges.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The delegation of duties by a Clerk of Court to a Deputy Sheriff in the execution of court orders is permissible and does not constitute a violation of legal responsibilities.
  • Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs play a crucial role in the administration of justice and must be held to standards of diligence and accountability in their duties.
  • The burden of proof lies with the complainant to provide substantial evidence, and failure to cross-examine witnesses can lead to a dismissal of the case.