Monion vs. Sicat, Jr.

A sheriff's discharge of a levy on execution without court order, and failure to first verify and levy on the judgment obligor's personal properties before real properties, constitute simple neglect of duty; six prior administrative liabilities, each treated as an aggravating circumstance, and repeated warnings justify dismissal from service even for a less serious charge under Rule 140. The Court further clarified that if five or more aggravating circumstances are present, regardless of any mitigating circumstance, dismissal from service should be imposed.

Ricky Hao Monion was the private complainant in Criminal Case Nos. 15-241 and 15-244 against Bernadette Mullet Potts for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga. Vicente S. Sicat, Jr. was Sheriff IV stationed at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, Pampanga. The criminal cases were resolved by a Decision based on a Compromise Agreement, which led to a Writ of Execution dated May 5, 2016 addressed to the Sheriff and/or Deputy Sheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Pampanga. The administrative complaint arose from Sicat's implementation of that writ.

Ricky Hao Monion was the private complainant in Criminal Case Nos. 15-241 and 15-244 against Bernadette Mullet Potts for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 pending before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court rendered a Decision based on a Compromise Agreement, which prompted the issuance of a Writ of Execution dated May 5, 2016. The Writ of Execution was addressed to the Sheriff and/or Deputy Sheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Pampanga, ordering the latter to cause the execution of the judgment to levy the goods and chattels of Potts, and to make their sale in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Monion filed his Complaint Affidavit before the Office of the Court Administrator. He alleged that on January 4, 2018, Sicat willfully and purposely submitted to the Register of Deeds of Angeles City, Pampanga a Notice to Lift the Levy on the property of Potts without the necessary court order. The property consisted of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 045-2015007354. Monion claimed that Sicat deceived the Registry of Deeds when the latter provided misleading statements in the Notice stating that "Bernadette Potts has made several payments to Mr. Ricky Monion that would extinguish the levy of the property." The Notice sent by Sicat to the Registry of Deeds caused the cancellation of the levy and enabled the buyer, Glenn Facuri Garcia, to transfer the said parcel of land to his name. Because of this, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 045-2015007354 was cancelled, and a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 045-2018002601 under Garcia's name was issued.

Monion also alleged that Sicat was always hesitant to act on his follow-ups regarding the levy of Potts's other personal properties, and that he was only given alibis about the status of the execution. Finally, Monion believed that Sicat solicited an undisclosed significant amount of money to enable Potts to release her property from levy and transfer it to Garcia's name.

In Sicat's Comment/Explanation, he stated that he had been in the Judiciary for almost 40 years, or since April 1980, carrying and upholding the vision of a good and dedicated public servant, and that he would be retiring by 2020. Sicat vehemently denied the imputations against him for being supposedly false, malicious, and baseless. He claimed that his actions were purely based on procedural law, customs, and practice in effecting execution. Regarding the Notice of Lifting of Levy on Execution without court order, Sicat explained that Potts went to his office and informed him that he deviated from the established procedure in the execution of judgments when he levied, on a second lien, her real property to satisfy the ruling in favor of Monion. After finding basis in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides that personal property of the judgment debtor must first be exhausted before going after real property, Sicat made the necessary release of the levy on execution. Sicat also explained that every time Monion visited him to check on the execution, he would constantly go to the subject premises, but no person or resident was present every time since the property was always padlocked. Further, Sicat insisted that he was not aware of any subsequent sale and that he did not receive any amount in relation to or in consideration of his actions. Sicat also stated that Monion had filed several dubious complaints against other co-sheriffs and court employees allegedly without any point of satisfaction, always complaining and insisting why it cannot be done his way.

The Office of the Court Administrator found that Sicat could not be held administratively liable for abuse of authority and violation of Republic Act No. 3019 due to Monion's failure to provide any substantial proof. It found the allegations of hesitation and evasiveness unsubstantiated, and the allegation of solicitation failed for lack of proof. However, it found that Sicat's act of lifting and canceling the levy without a court order was improper, making him liable for simple neglect of duty. The Office of the Court Administrator found that Sicat exhibited negligence when he failed to check on Potts's personal properties before levying her parcel of land, and that he was careless when he sent a notice to the Registry of Deeds without the requisite court order. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of fact and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator, noting that Sicat admitted to making the necessary release of the levy on execution without a court order.

• Abuse of Authority and Violation of Republic Act No. 3019: Monion alleged that Sicat willfully and purposely submitted to the Register of Deeds of Angeles City, Pampanga a Notice to Lift the Levy on the property of Potts without the necessary court order, constituting abuse of authority and violation of Republic Act No. 3019.
• Misleading Notice and Cancellation of Levy: Monion claimed that Sicat deceived the Registry of Deeds by stating in the Notice that "Bernadette Potts has made several payments to Mr. Ricky Monion that would extinguish the levy of the property," causing the cancellation of the levy and enabling Glenn Facuri Garcia to transfer the property to his name.
• Evasive Conduct: Monion alleged that Sicat was always hesitant to act on his follow-ups regarding the levy of Potts's other personal properties and gave only alibis about the status of the execution.
• Solicitation: Monion believed that Sicat solicited an undisclosed significant amount of money to enable Potts to release her property from levy and transfer it to Garcia's name.

• Denial of Imputations: Sicat vehemently denied the imputations as false, malicious, and baseless, claiming his actions were purely based on procedural law, customs, and practice in effecting execution.
• Improper Levy on Real Property: Sicat explained that Potts informed him that he deviated from established procedure when he levied, on a second lien, her real property to satisfy the judgment in favor of Monion; after finding basis in Rule 39 that personal property must first be exhausted before real property, he made the necessary release of the levy.
• Follow-ups and Padlocked Property: Sicat explained that whenever Monion visited him to check on the execution, he would go to the subject premises, but no person or resident was present because the property was always padlocked.
• No Knowledge of Sale or Consideration: Sicat insisted that he was not aware of any subsequent sale and did not receive any amount in relation to or in consideration of his actions.
• Monion's Complaint History: Sicat stated that Monion had filed several dubious complaints against other co-sheriffs and court employees allegedly without any point of satisfaction, always complaining and insisting why it cannot be done his way.

• Disciplinary Action and Penalty: Whether respondent Vicente S. Sicat, Jr.'s act of lifting and discharging the levy without court order and failing to verify Potts's personal properties warrants disciplinary action and, if so, whether dismissal from service is the proper penalty.

• Disciplinary Action and Penalty: Yes. Sicat is guilty of simple neglect of duty and is dismissed from service. A sheriff's discharge of a levy without court order and failure to first verify and levy personal properties violate Rule 39, Section 9; under Rule 140, simple neglect is a less serious charge, but six prior administrative liabilities as aggravating circumstances and repeated warnings justify dismissal.

• Disciplinary Action and Penalty: The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator's findings of fact. Sicat admitted making the necessary release of the levy on execution without a court order. A discharge of the levy on a property without court order is improper. Under Rule 15, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, a motion to cancel a statutory lien is a litigious motion requiring service on the adverse party and resolution by the court, although the amended rule was not yet in effect at the time. More importantly, Rule 39, Section 9 prescribes the sheriff's duties in enforcing a money judgment: demand immediate payment; receive payment; levy on properties not exempt if payment is not made; give the obligor the option to choose property; if no option, first levy on personal properties, including garnishment of debts and credits; and levy on real properties only if personal properties are insufficient. These duties are ministerial; sheriffs have no discretion and must strictly follow the procedure. No rule allows a sheriff to issue a notice to lift a property already levied without court intervention. Sicat veered from his duties when he failed to verify Potts's personal properties before levying her real properties and when he sent the Notice to the Registry of Deeds without proper court proceedings. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Had Sicat verified personal properties, the Notice would not have been issued; his act of issuing the Notice without court order is not sanctioned by any rule or jurisprudence. A sheriff's deviation from the Rules warrants disciplinary action. Thus, he is guilty of simple neglect of duty. On penalty, the Office of the Court Administrator used the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, but the Court disagreed. Rule 140, as amended, applies retroactively to pending and future administrative cases concerning Judiciary personnel. Under Rule 140, simple neglect of duty is a less serious charge punishable by suspension of one to six months or a fine of more than PHP 35,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Sections 19 and 20 allow mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Sicat's six previous administrative liabilities are aggravating; no mitigating circumstance is present. Section 20 does not contemplate dismissal for a less serious charge despite multiple aggravating circumstances, so the Court would have imposed a fine double the maximum under Section 15. However, the Court had repeatedly warned Sicat that repetition of similar infractions would result in a more severe penalty than fines and suspension. His 40-year service showed a deliberate refusal to faithfully perform his duties and a pattern of unwillingness to reform. The Court therefore imposed dismissal. It clarified that each previous administrative liability where a penalty was imposed, regardless of nature or gravity, should be treated individually as an aggravating circumstance; and if five or more aggravating circumstances are present, regardless of any mitigating circumstance, the Court should impose dismissal from service. Further amendments to Rule 140 are in order to address the gap. Court employees are bound to live up to the strictest standards; recurring conduct marked by frequent administrative cases undermines the Judiciary and public trust.

• Simple neglect of duty — Failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. The Court applied it to Sicat because he failed to verify Potts's personal properties before levying her real properties and sent a Notice to lift the levy without court order.
• Ministerial duties of sheriffs — Sheriffs have no discretion in implementing a writ of execution and must strictly abide by the procedure in Rule 39, Section 9. The Court applied this by holding Sicat liable for deviating from the prescribed order of levy and for lifting the levy without court intervention.
• Discharge or cancellation of levy as a litigious motion — Under Rule 15, Section 5, a motion to cancel a statutory lien is a litigious motion requiring service on the adverse party and court resolution. Although the amended rule was not yet effective at the time, the Court held that no rule allows a sheriff to issue a notice lifting a levied property without court intervention.
• Rule 140 modifying circumstances — Previous administrative liability where a penalty was imposed, regardless of nature or gravity, is an aggravating circumstance; each liability should be treated individually. If five or more aggravating circumstances are present, regardless of any mitigating circumstance, the Court should impose dismissal from service. The Court applied this to justify dismissal despite simple neglect being a less serious charge.
• Strict standards for court employees — Court employees are public servants bound to live up to the strictest standards in the performance of their duties with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Recurring conduct marked by frequent administrative cases undermines the integrity of the Judiciary and public trust. The Court applied this in imposing the gravest penalty.

• "A discharge of the levy on a property without court order is improper." — This states the core violation and the rule that a sheriff may not unilaterally lift a levy.
• "Nowhere in the rules does it allow a sheriff to issue a notice to lift a property already levied for execution without the necessary court intervention." — This defines the lack of authority that made Sicat's act improper.
• "In Civil Service Commission v. Catacutan, this Court characterized simple neglect of duty as 'failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.'" — This is the canonical definition of simple neglect of duty applied to Sicat.
• "First, as to the treatment of previous administrative liabilities where a penalty was imposed, regardless of nature and/or gravity, each liability should be treated individually as an aggravating circumstance. Second, as to the manner of imposition of the modifying circumstances, if five or more aggravating circumstances are present, regardless of any mitigating circumstance, the Court should impose the penalty of dismissal from service." — This is the Court's clarification on the treatment of prior administrative liabilities and the threshold for dismissal.

• Civil Service Commission vs. Catacutan, G.R. No. 224651, July 3, 2019 — Cited for the definition of simple neglect of duty as failure to give proper attention to a task expected, signifying disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.
• Vicsal Development Corporation vs. Dela Cruz-Buendia, A.M. No. P-12-3097, November 26, 2012; 699 Phil. 284, 296 (2012) — Cited for the rule that a sheriff's deviation from the procedure laid down by the Rules warrants disciplinary action.
• Roxas vs. Sicat, 824 Phil. 239 (2018) — Cited in support of the holding that a discharge of the levy on a property without court order is improper.
• Cabanatan vs. Molina, 421 Phil. 664, 676 (2001) — Cited for the principle that the Court will not shy from ridding its ranks of court employees who undermine its efforts towards an effective and efficient administration of justice.
• Dela Rama vs. De Leon, A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021 — Cited for the standard that court employees are bound to live up to the strictest standards in the performance of their duties.
• Teodosio vs. Somosa, 612 Phil. 858, 875 (2009) — Cited for the important role of sheriffs in the administration of justice and the high standards expected of them.

• Rule 15, Section 5, Rules of Court (as amended) — Defines litigious motions, including a motion to cancel a statutory lien, and requires service on the adverse party and court resolution. The Court noted this amended rule was not yet in effect at the time of the infraction but used it to illustrate that cancellation or discharge of a levy requires court intervention.
• Rule 39, Section 9, Rules of Court — Prescribes execution of judgments for money and the sheriff's duties: demand immediate payment, receive payment, levy on properties if payment is not made, give the obligor the option to choose property, first levy on personal properties if no option, and levy on real properties only if personal properties are insufficient. The Court applied this to find Sicat negligent for failing to verify personal properties before levying real property and for lifting the levy without court order.
• Rule 140, Section 15, Rules of Court (as amended) — Classifies simple neglect of duty as a less serious charge and prescribes suspension of one to six months or a fine of more than PHP 35,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 100,000.00. The Court used this to determine the applicable penalty before considering aggravating circumstances.
• Rule 140, Sections 19 and 20, Rules of Court (as amended) — Provide for mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the manner of imposition. The Court treated Sicat's six prior administrative liabilities as aggravating circumstances and clarified that each should be treated individually, and that five or more aggravating circumstances warrant dismissal regardless of any mitigating circumstance.
• Rule 140, Section 24, Rules of Court (as amended) — Cited in the decision's footnote for the retroactive application of amended Rule 140 to pending and future administrative cases concerning officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary. The Court applied it to Sicat's case.

Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Kho, Jr., J., filed a separate concurring opinion. Marquez, J., took no part due to prior participation as Court Administrator. In his separate concurring opinion, Kho, Jr., J. concurred in the result and in the penalty of dismissal, but opined that Sicat should be found administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty rather than Simple Neglect of Duty. He reasoned that gross negligence involves a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty, and that the frequency of Sicat's administrative offenses—six prior liabilities, including two for simple neglect of duty with stern warnings—showed utter incorrigibility. Gross neglect is a serious charge punishable by dismissal under Rule 140.