A sheriff who inflicted bodily harm on a litigant while enforcing a writ of execution has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Sponsored
In a Per Curiam Decision, the Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) that Christopher T. Perez, Sheriff IV of Branch 74, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, Zambales (Sheriff Perez) should be penalized for grave abuse of authority and gross insubordination.
On November 26, 2019, Rodalyn Hanif (Hanif) filed a complaint against Sheriff Perez. Hanif alleged that while the Sheriff was implementing the writ of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Olongapo City in the forcible entry case involving Hanif, he punched Hanif twice in her right forearm, resulting in some bruising. This was supported by the Medico-Legal Certificate indicating that she suffered “contusion/hematoma 5×4 cm anterior aspect of the right forearm, m/3rd area” and “residual contusion, right infra auricular area, front, no boarders.” The certificate likewise stated that Hanif was examined and treated at the James L. Gordon Memorial Hospital on November 15, 2019, and needed medical attention for less than nine days.
Ads.
When asked for his comment on March 2, 2020, Sheriff Perez filed a Motion for Extension to File Comment, seeking an extension of 30 days within which to file. The request for extension was granted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), but Sheriff Perez failed to submit his comment despite the extension.
Ads.
The OCA then sent Sheriff Perez a 1st Tracer dated October 20, 2020, reiterating the previous directive for him to submit his comment within five days from receipt of the tracer; otherwise the matter would be submitted to the Court. Sheriff Perez failed yet again to submit his comment.
Following an investigation, Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) Acting Executive Director Atty. James D.V. Navarrete recommended that Sheriff Perez be held liable for Simple Misconduct and Insubordination.
The JIB adopted the factual findings of its Acting Executive Director, but increased the recommended penalty to dismissal from the service, holding that the infliction of bodily harm upon Hanif was unjustifiable and constituted grave abuse of authority.
The JIB further found that Sheriff Perez’s failure to submit his comment despite repeated directives from the OCA was tantamount to gross insubordination.
Related
Suggested answer in Political Law & International Law Read here
The Court adopted the factual findings of the JIB, but modified Sheriff Perez’s administrative liability.
Based on the evidence, specifically: Hanif’s Reklamong Sinumpaang Salaysay, photographs of the events that transpired during the enforcement of the writ, and the Medico-Legal Certificate, the Court found that Hanif was able to substantiate her allegations.
Thus, the burden shifted to Sheriff Perez to disprove the allegations. However, Sheriff Perez repeatedly refused to comply with the directives for him to submit his comment, resulting in his failure to controvert the pieces of evidence against him.
Ads.
Reiterating its 2004 ruling in Alcaraz v. Lindo, the Court stressed that silence is admission if there was a chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges against the respondent.
The Court concluded that Sheriff Perez indeed inflicted bodily harm upon Hanif and is hence guilty of grave abuse of authority, which is defined as a misdemeanor by a public officer, who under color of his or her office, wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury.
In the case of Sheriff Perez, he utterly failed to justify the necessity of using force upon Hanif. His actions, which led to Hanif suffering bodily harm and injury were thus grossly unnecessary, rendering him administratively accountable.
The Court also underscored how sheriffs, who serve and implement court writs, execute processes, and carry into effect orders of the court, are expected to know the rules of procedure pertaining to their functions as court officers and show a high degree of professionalism at all times.
As held in the Court’s 2019 Resolution in Garlan v. Sigales, sheriffs are obliged to perform their duties while respecting the party litigants’ rights, without needless violence and oppression.
The Court similarly found Sheriff Perez guilty of gross insubordination for his repeated non-compliance with the OCA’s directive to furnish his comment. Such defiance constituted clear and willful disrespect, not just for the OCA, but for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA, held the Court.
The Court further stressed that court personnel subject to administrative complaints cannot just ignore directives for them to comment on a complaint as such shows utter lack of respect for the Court and the institution they represent.
The Court thus imposed on Sheriff Perez the penalties of dismissal from the service for grave abuse of authority, and a fine of PHP 110,000 for gross insubordination, taking into consideration that this is the 10th administrative complaint filed against the Sheriff.
Related
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the Decision in A.M. No. P-23-082 (Hanif v. Perez) once it receives the same from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
コメント