Trinidad v. Javier

POLIREV 1
JUDICIARY - POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DISCIPLINE THE MEMBERS OF THE

BENCH, BAR AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY
TRINIDAD v. JAVIER
A.M. No. P-11-2894 | 10 April 2019 | Per Curiam
Complainant: Roman Trinidad

Respondent: Alan Javier (Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Tanauan City RTC)
Doctrine: Those in the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and any act of impropriety on their part
immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it. The
Supreme Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts towards an
effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public.
CASE SUMMARY
FACTS: Trinidad charged Sheriff Javier with grave misconduct, dereliction of duty, conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service, and violation of the Rules of Court in relation to Javier’s handling of the
execution proceedings in the civil case where judgment was rendered in favor of Trinidad. In particular,
Javier, on three separate occasions, personally collected from Trinidad amounts totaling to PHP 60,000
as expenses for the execution of the judgment, particularly as payment to, which included food expenses
of, the police officers who would assist in the implementation of the writ of execution. When Javier failed
to execute the judgment, Trinidad demanded for the return of his money, which Javier denied receiving.
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the OCA that Javier was guilty of grave misconduct,
dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service. However, the SC increased Javier’s
penalty, from one-year suspension without pay, to dismissal from service – a stiffer penalty
commensurate to the offense he committed, which cannot be tolerated for tarnishing the image of the
judiciary.
FACTS
 Complainant Trinidad was the plaintiff in an ejectment case filed with the MTCC of Tanauan,
Batangas
o MTCC ruled in favor of Trinidad and ordered that the defendants vacate.
o MTCC issued a writ of execution, which was assigned to respondent Sheriff Javier.
 Javier demanded PHP 50,000 as expenses for the execution of the judgment.
o He claimed that the expenses would cover the payment to police officers who would
implement the execution.
o Trinidad gave the PHP 50,000 and was issued a receipt.
 Javier subsequently went directly to Trinidad’s house twice more and asked for another PHP 30,000
for the food of the police officers.
o In each instance, Trinidad said he could only give PHP 5,000, and the transactions were
recorded in a notebook and signed by Javier.
 Later, Trinidad received a copy the Sheriff’s Report that requested for the resurvey of the property.
o Consequently, Trinidad demanded the return of his money due to Javier’s failure to execute
the judgment.
 Javier denied that he demanded and received money.
o Javier claimed that he only went to the house of Trinidad to ask him to pinpoint the exact
boundaries of his property because the monuments were missing.
 The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found substantial evidence to prove that Javier violated
Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, and held that Javier’s acts of soliciting and accepting
money from Trinidad rendered him liable for conduct unbecoming of a court employee, as well as for
grave misconduct and dishonesty, the latter two being penalized with dismissal from the service.
o Opining that Javier’s penalty should be mitigated because the charge had been his first
offense and he had been in the service of the judiciary for more than three decades, the OCA
recommended to suspend Javier for one year without pay for the charges against him.
ISSUES + HELD
March 16, 2022

POLIREV 2
JUDICIARY - POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DISCIPLINE THE MEMBERS OF THE
BENCH, BAR AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY
ISSUE #1: Whether OCA’s recommended penalty of 1-year suspension without pay is
commensurate to the gravity of the offense committed by Sheriff Javier – NO
 Sheriff Javier’s acts and actuations should not be tolerated. He tarnished the image of the
judiciary, and should be severely punished for having disregarded his sworn duty and
responsibility to serve the judiciary with honor and dignity, and to keep the people's
confidence in the judiciary undiminished.
o Office of the Court Administrator v. Umblas (2017): Those in the judiciary serve as
sentinels of justice, and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the
honor and dignity of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it. The institution
demands the best possible individuals in the service and it had never and will never
tolerate nor condone any conduct which would violate the norms of public
accountability, and diminish, or even tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the
justice system. In this light, the Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables
who undermine its efforts towards an effective and efficient administration of justice,
thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public.
 Javier was unable to rebut the positive and categorical testimonies of complainant Trinidad and his
witnesses.
o His defense was mere denial.
o Neither did Javier initiate the submission of evidence nor expert testimony to support his
allegation that the acknowledgment signatures in the receipt and the notebook for the sums
paid were not his.
 Javier was guilty of guilty of gross misconduct.

o Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule
of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official. It is grave where the
elements of corruption, or clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established
rule is present.
 Javier deliberately ignored the prescribed procedure under the Rules of Court for the estimate,
approval, payment, and collection of sheriff's expenses in executing writs, and directly demanded and
received from Trinidad the sums of money.
o Litonjua v. Marcelino (2018), the sheriff’s failure to observe the procedural rules was held to
constitute a dereliction of duty, and the sheriff was dismissed from the service.
 Neither did Javier implement the writ of execution, causing prejudice to Trinidad’s case. Worse,
Javier denied receiving the sums of money and refused to return them.
o Litonjua v. Marcelino (2018): A sheriff’s failure to turn over amounts received from a party in
his official capacity constituted misappropriation of funds and amounted to dishonesty.
 Grave misconduct and dishonesty are punishable by dismissal from the service even if committed for
the first time by the erring public servant before the implementation of the 2017 Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS).
o Consequently, the recommendation to appreciate the fact that the charge was his first offense
and the fact that he had been in the service of the judiciary for more than three decades as
mitigating circumstances in Javier’s favor cannot be adopted.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES respondent ALAN C. JAVIER,
Sheriff IV, RTC-OCC, Tanauan City in the Province of Batangas GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT,
DISHONESTY and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE;
DISMISSES him from the service effective from notice; and FORFEITS all his retirement benefits, except
accrued leave credits, WITH PREJUDICE TO RE-EMPLOYMENT in any branch or instrumentality of the
Government including government-owned or government-controlled corporations. So ordered.
March 16, 2022

Trinidad v. Javier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trinidad v. Javier

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trinidad v. Javier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLIREV 1

JUDICIARY - POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DISCIPLINE THE MEMBERS OF THE

Complainant: Roman Trinidad

March 16, 2022

 Javier was guilty of guilty of gross misconduct.

March 16, 2022

You might also like