Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50067:am-p-06-2198-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:33:09+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-06-2198 - Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2214-P - Sta. Lucia East commercial Corp etc. v. Conrado G. Lamano etc.
STA. LUCIA EAST COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, represented by CIPRIANO BONCAY, Complainant, v. CONRADO G. LAMANO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Manila, Respondent.
In a letter-complaint1 to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), complainant Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation or SLECC (represented by its operations manager, Cipriano Boncay) charged respondent Conrado G. Lamano, sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37 of Manila, with neglect of duty, misconduct in office, conduct unbecoming of a court employee, inefficiency and obstruction in the administration of justice.
The complainant narrated that, on April 27 and 28, 2004, respondent served on its tenants a notice of garnishment2 pursuant to a writ of preliminary attachment3 issued by the RTC-Manila in Civil Case No. 04-109259 entitled Orlando Villa and Lourdes Villa v. Sta. Lucia Realty Development Corporation ([SLRDC]), Rapid City Realty Corporation and Veronica Lee.
The notice sought to garnish SLRDC's goods, credits, shares of stocks and interests, including the monthly rentals being paid by the tenants of Sta. Lucia Mall.
According to the complainant, immediately after the service of the notice, it filed an affidavit of third-party claim4 under Rule 39, Section 165 of the Rules of Court, calling respondent's attention to the fact that it was not impleaded as party in Civil Case No. 04-109259 and that it possessed a juridical personality separate from that of SLRDC.
Complainant averred that respondent did not act on its claim, hence, it filed a petition for injunction (with a prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order [TRO] and/or a writ of preliminary injunction) in the RTC of Antipolo City to enjoin respondent from garnishing the monthly rentals of its tenants.
During the hearings for the issuance of the TRO, respondent failed to appear despite notices. Subsequently, the RTC-Antipolo City allowed the complainant to submit its evidence. The TRO was thereafter issued against respondent. A writ of preliminary injunction followed after complainant posted the required bond.
Despite the issuance of the writ, respondent still sent an order6 to complainant's tenants demanding delivery of their monthly rentals to him.
The complainant contended that respondent (1) failed to follow Rule 39, Section 167 of the Rules of Court on its third-party claim; (2) displayed a conduct unbecoming of an officer of the judiciary by ignoring the RTC-Antipolo City's summonses and notices for him to appear during the hearing of the injunction case; (3) caused and contributed to the delay in the administration of justice without justifiable cause and (4) ordered the delivery of the rentals despite the writ of preliminary injunction issued against him by the RTC-Antipolo City.
In his comment,8 respondent denied the complainant's accusations. According to him, the complainant could not expect him to act or rule on the third-party claim as the same must be decided by the court. He stated that, under the Rules of Court, his only duty was to inform the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 04-109259 of the claim so they could post the necessary bond. As to the notice of garnishment, respondent maintained that, although he prepared it, it was the collaborating sheriff who actually served it on the complainant's tenants.
In Civil Case No. 04-109259, respondent sheriff was forewarned of his grave error in issuing the writ of attachment against [the complainant] when an [a]ffidavit of [t]hird [p]arty claim was filed...stating that [the complainant] and [SLRDC] are two different juridical personalities.
After a careful study of the case, we deem that respondent was guilty of simple misconduct, as well as inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties.
In this case, respondent miserably failed to conform to the stringent standards of his office. Under the circumstances, he should have ascertained the party for whom the writ of preliminary attachment was intended before he served the notice of garnishment. Furthermore, after having been apprised by the complainant of the erroneous service, respondent should have refrained from issuing the order demanding delivery of the tenants' monthly rentals.
Assuming that respondent's contention was correct, it could not be an excuse to disregard the court's notices and orders. He could have simply filed the proper manifestation, motion or pleading to vent his opinion instead of ignoring the court altogether. Unmistakably, his conduct showed disrespect to the very institution he was expected to serve and uphold.
Moreover, respondent cannot escape liability by insisting that it was his collaborating sheriff who actually served the notice of garnishment. It remains indubitable that, despite knowledge of the erroneous service and the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against him, he still ordered the conveyance of the rentals to him.
Respondent's actuations constituted (simple) misconduct which means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule,18 unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.19 Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense.
The above provision should enlighten respondent that his duty was not just confined to informing the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 04-109259 of the filing of the third-party claim. It was also his duty not to keep the property of the complainant (as the third-party claimant) if the plaintiffs (as judgment obligee) there did not post the required bond.
Under the same Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties are considered a grave offense carrying a penalty of suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense.
In the absence of any circumstance that can extenuate respondent's liability in this case, a suspension of six (6) months for simple misconduct and six (6) months for inefficiency and incompetence is warranted.
WHEREFORE, respondent Conrado G. Lamano is found GUILTY of simple misconduct, as well as inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED for six (6) months for simple misconduct and six (6) months for inefficiency and incompetence, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
2 Annex "B," id., p.7.
3 Annex "A," id., p. 6.
4 Annex "D," id., pp. 8-9.
5 SEC. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person.
7 Supra at note 5.
13 Sulapas v. Basco, A.M. No. P-07-2310, 19 April 2007.
16 Salazar v. Barriga, A.M. No. P-05-206, 19 April 2007.
17 Supra at note 11.
18 Salazar v. Barriga, supra.
19 Santos v. Rasalan, G.R. No. 155749, 8 February 2007.
20 Supra at note 8.
21 See also Paguyo v. Gatbunton, A.M. P-03-2315, 25 May 2007.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.