Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > September 1981 Decisions > A.M. No. P-2089 September 30, 1981 - FELBET’S TIMBER, INC., ET AL. v. GLICERIO LUMUTHANG, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-2089. September 30, 1981.]

FELBET’S TIMBER, INC. and FELIX J. DOMINGO, Complainants, v. GLICERIO LUMUTHANG and ANTONIO LETADA, Respondents.

Blasito E. Angeles for complainant.

Pedro C. Buhion for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Respondents sheriffs were administratively charged for having proceeded with the seizure of complainants’ properties under a writ of execution on November 19, 1978, despite respondent Lumuthang’s receipt of a letter from complainant’s counsel informing him that according to the NLRC Regional Office, an order temporarily restraining implementation of the writ was to be issued by the NLRC, and notwithstanding the plea of complainants representative for suspension of the levy with an assurance that measures will be taken so that respondents could immediately communicate with the NLRC Regional Office to verify the report. Complainants alleged that the writ had been with the respondents from November 8 to 19 without serving the same and no prejudice could have resulted if respondents suspended the levy on November 19 which was a Sunday. Respondents commented that they opted to continue with the levy since they could not merely rely on the letter of counsel for complainants, and that the seizure had to be done on a Sunday because that was the only day of the week when complainants motor vehicles could be found in their compound. The records show that respondents were served with a copy of the restraining order dated November 17, 1978 only on November 20. The Investigating Judge found respondent Lumuthang guilty of indiscretion for not having verified first with the NLRC Regional Office if indeed there was a restraining order and recommended that he be given a warning, but found no evidence against respondent Letada who only assisted in the execution of the writ.

The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Inquest Judge that respondent Lumuthang was culpable, but in view of respondents’ recidivism, having been found guilty of incompetence and grave abuse of authority amounting to oppression and grave misconduct in one case, and having been required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt in another case, for filing a false or groundless complaint against a judge and failing to prosecute, the Court considered respondent Lumuthang resigned from the service with prejudice to reinstatement. Respondent Letada was absolved from the charge.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST SHERIFFS; MISCONDUCT; INDISCRETION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION; CASE AT BAR. — A deputy sheriff who proceeds with the implementation of a writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter, despite information that a temporary restraining order to restrain implementation of the said writ has already been issued by the NLRC, and notwithstanding the plea of the party against whom the writ is issued for suspension of the levy with an assurance that measures will be taken so that said deputy sheriff could immediately communicate with the NLRC Regional Office to verify the report, is guilty of misconduct. The sheriff who merely assisted him in the execution of the writ is however not liable for this indiscretion.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY THEREFOR; RECIDIVISM CONSIDERED IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN CASE AT BAR. — In determining the appropriate penalty to be meted to the respondent sheriff who was found guilty of indiscretion in the implementation of a writ of execution, the Supreme Court considered the other administrative cases involving said respondent one, where he was found guilty of incompetence and grave abuse of authority amounting to oppression and grave misconduct; and the other, where he was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for filing a false or groundless complaint against a judge and failing to appear and prosecute. In view of his repeated misconduct, respondent was considered resigned from the service effective upon receipt of the decision with prejudice to reinstatement.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Administrative complaint against Glicerio Lumuthang and Antonio Letada as deputy sheriffs of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte at Tagum.

The verified complaint dated November 24, 1978, charged the respondents of oppression, misconduct and discourtesy in the enforcement of the writ of execution issued against Felbet’s Timber, Inc. by the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Office No. XI at Davao City in NLRC Cases No. 945-MC-XI-78 and No. 946-MC-XI-78.

On September 4, 1978, the National Labor Relations Commission, Region XI, rendered a decision against Felbet’s Timber, Inc. in the two aforementioned cases, for the total amount of P117,414.65 plus attorney’s fees. Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued by the Labor Arbiter (Region XI) on November 7, 1978.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Felbet’s Timber, Inc. appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission at Manila. On its urgent petition, the NLRC issued a resolution en banc dated November 17, 1978, enjoining the execution of the decision and the corresponding writ of execution.

The resolution of November 17, 1978, was not, however, served upon the respondents sheriffs until November 20, 1978, a day after they had actually levied upon and seized some properties of the complainants.

According to the complainants, in the afternoon of November 18, 1978, their counsel, Atty. Blasito Angeles received information from Liwanag Aguirre, Administrative Assistant of NLRC, Region XI, regarding which, Atty. Angeles addressed the following letter dated November 18, 1978, to respondent Glicerio Lumuthang.

"J.S. Carriedo Bldg.,

76-F, Magallanes St.,

Davao City

November 18, 1978

The Sheriff of Davao

(Attn: Dep. Sheriff Lumuthang)

Tagum, Davao

Re: Writ of Execution in NLRC Cases

Nos. 946 & 945, MC-XI-78-

entitled ‘Avila Et Al v. Felbet’s

Timber, Inc., Et Al’

S i r s:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We are informed over the phone by Mr. Aguirre of the NLRC, Regional Office No. XI, Davao City, that pursuant to the telephone conversation with NLRC Executive Director Bolisay, the NLRC shall issue a temporary restraining order, to restrain the implementation of the writ of execution issued by the NLRC, Regional Office No. XI. Therefore, Mr. Aguirre requested me to contact you, and to advise you to immediately see Mr. Aguirre on the above-cited matter. I am therefore now relaying said request of Mr. Aguirre to you, with the hope that you can immediately see him for instructions.

In the meantime, and since we are approaching the week-end, or Sunday, it is hoped and requested that you will defer further action on the said writ of execution, until you receive any official advise or instructions from Mr. Aguirre, of the NLRC Regional Branch No. XI, Davao City, which issued the writ of execution now in your hands.

Thank you for your prompt attention hereto.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) BLASITO E. ANGELES

Counsel for respondents

Felbet’s Timber, Inc., Et. Al."cralaw virtua1aw library

The foregoing letter was delivered to respondent Lumuthang on November 19, 1978, by Alfredo Escandor, a representative of the complainants, who found Lumuthang and Letada together with Atty. Lucilo Regis (counsel for the claimants in the above-mentioned NLRC cases) at the complainants’ logging compound in Maco, Davao del Norte. At that time the respondents were actually in the process of levying on the properties of the complainants at the compound.

Notwithstanding Escandor’s plea for suspension of the levy and assurance that measures will be taken so that respondents could immediately communicate with Liwanag Aguirre to verify the report contained in the letter, the respondents continued the seizure of the complainants’ properties, consisting of 5 motor vehicles and other personal properties.

The complainants’ properties were thus taken from its logging compound at Maco, Davao del Norte, and brought to the Free Farmers Federation compound at Fabe Subdivision, Tagum, Davao del Norte.

The next day, November 20, 1978, the NLRC Regional Office received and in turn served upon the respondents a copy of the NLRC resolution en banc of November 17, 1978, containing the restraining order.

On the same day, complainants obtained the return of the properties seized by the respondents.

The complainants, thus, allege that with obvious partiality and grave abuse of discretion amounting to grave misconduct, respondent sheriffs elected to rely upon the advice of Atty. Regis, and with obvious discourtesy in the performance of their official duty, ignored and unceremoniously rebuffed or disregarded the information contained in the letter. It is further alleged that the writ of execution had been with the respondents from November 8 to 19, 1978, without serving the same; that no prejudice could have resulted if the respondents had suspended the levy on November 19, 1978, which was actually a Sunday, until they could verify the contents of Atty. Angeles’ letter; and that in making the levy, the respondents were motivated by malice and intent to oppress, harass, embarrass and besmirch the personal, social and business reputation of the complainants.

The gist of the respondents’ joint comment (dated February 22, 1979), is that they could not have relied merely on the letter of Atty. Angeles, who being counsel for the complainants could not have been "neutral or impartial." No restraining order was presented to them, they claim; and neither was Liwanag Aguirre presented to explain the matter.

They also said that they had to serve the writ of execution on the complainants on Sunday, November 19, 1978, because that was the only day of the week when complainants’ motor vehicles could be found at their compound. They maintain that they only followed an order from a proper authority and conducted the levy according to law.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After due investigation, Executive Judge Alfredo Lagamon, Court of First Instance at Tagum, Davao del Norte, submitted an investigation report dated February 24, 1981, which states that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The records of the case was received on January 21, 1981. The first hearing was scheduled on February 3, 1981 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Complainant through counsel, filed an urgent motion for transfer of hearing on February 3, 1981. Said motion was granted and trial was re-scheduled and set for hearing on February 10, 1981 at 8:30 in the morning.

"On February 10, 1981, the day of the hearing, complainant and his lawyer, Atty. Blasito E. Angeles appeared in Court and manifested that they are ready for trial. The respondents also appeared with their lawyer, Atty. Pedro C. Buhion and informed the Court that they are also ready for trial.

"The Court informed the parties that the hearing of the case shall be conducted in chambers because the proceedings are confidential. While the complainant and the respondents were in chambers together with their lawyers, they jointly prayed for a recess and after said recess, complainant through counsel informed the Court that they are not submitting any testimonial evidence but would like the Court to appreciate their complaint on the basis of the documentary evidence annexed to the complaint. The respondents through counsel, also made the same manifestations. In effect, the parties have come to an amicable settlement after the respondents explained to the complainant their positions.

"There are issues however, which still must be considered, supported by documentary evidence and admitted by the respondents, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) That on November 17, 1978, the NLRC en banc approved a resolution enjoining among others the respondents from executing or enforcing the writ of execution in question;

b) That Atty. Blasito E. Angeles, counsel for the complainant, sent a letter to the respondent, Glicerio Lumuthang, requesting him to confer with Mr. Aguirre, NLRC Regional Office XI, Davao City, about a temporary restraining order issued by the NLRC and requesting further that no further action on the writ of execution shall be made until official advice or instruction shall have been received from Mr. Aguirre;

c) Respondents admitted these facts in their answer but since no copy of the restraining order was shown to respondent Glicerio Lumuthang, he opted to continue with the levy, completely disregarding the request of Atty. Blasito E. Angeles, counsel for the complainant.

"It is the opinion of the undersigned that respondent Deputy Sheriff Glicerio Lumuthang should not have proceeded with the execution. He could have easily checked with the NLRC, Regional Office at Davao City and verify if indeed there was a temporary restraining order. A delay of a few hours could not have prejudiced the prevailing parties. For this act of indiscretion, the undersigned believes that respondent Lumuthang should be given a warning to be more prudent in the future.

"There seems to be no evidence against respondent Antonio Letada. He only assisted in the execution. The decision to proceed with the levy was the sole responsibility of respondent Glicerio Lumuthang."cralaw virtua1aw library

We agree with the investigating judge that Lumuthang is indeed culpable but we cannot accept his recommendation that said respondent be given a mere warning.

In determining the appropriate penalty to be meted to Lumuthang, it is pertinent to mention the decision and resolution rendered by Us in other administrative cases involving said Respondent. In Administrative Matter No. P-1549, entitled "Raul C. Briz versus Deputy Sheriffs Faustino Encinares, Jr., and Glicerio Lumuthang, etc.", We found the respondents guilty of incompetence and grave abuse of authority amounting to oppression and grave misconduct and meted the penalty of suspension from office for one month without pay with stern warning that repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely. And in Administrative Matter No. 1264-MJ, entitled "Glicerio Lumuthang versus Judge Juanito de Leon, etc.", We resolved to dismiss the complaint against the judge for failure of the complainant to prosecute the case and We further resolved to require the complainant Glicerio Lumuthang to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for filing a false or groundless complaint and failing to appear and prosecute.

In view of the recidivism of respondent Lumuthang, he deserves a severe penalty. On the other hand, We agree with the investigating judge that respondent Antonio Letada is blameless.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, for repeated misconduct in office, respondent Deputy Sheriff Glicerio Lumuthang is hereby considered resigned from the service effective upon receipt of this decision with prejudice to reinstatement. The other respondent, Deputy Sheriff Antonio Letada, is hereby absolved from the complaint.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and De Castro, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. Nos. 2367-CAR & 2373-CAR September 3, 1981 - JULIO E. QUIZ v. AMADO B. CASTAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-28266 September 4, 1981 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43861 September 4, 1981 - FILIPINO METALS CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48992 September 4, 1981 - TOWERS REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL. v. FERNANDO CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 56572 and 57481 September 4, 1981 - JUAN ANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56989 September 4, 1981 - RODOLFO B. SOQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 269-J September 10, 1981 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. GREGORIO A. LEGASPI

  • A.M. No. 1648-CFI September 10, 1981 - ALEJANDRO GALAN and CARMEN T. GALAN v. JUDGE DIMALANES B. BUISSAN

  • A.M. No. 2519-MJ September 10, 1981 - ESTHER MONTEMAYOR v. FRANCISCO COLLADO

  • G.R. No. L-27482 September 10, 1981 - GRACE PARK ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. MOHAMAD ALI DIMAPORO

  • G.R. No. L-28135 September 10, 1981 - JOSE MATIENZO v. MARTIN SERVIDAD

  • G.R. No. L-28486 September 10, 1981 - FRANCISCO MAGNO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32515 September 10, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38016 September 10, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41161 September 10, 1981 - FEDERATION OF FREE FARMERS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51997 September 10, 1981 - INOCENCIO H. GONZALES, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54886 September 10, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1938-CFI September 11, 1981 - CONCEPCION FONACIER-ABAÑO v. CONSTANTE A. ANCHETA

  • A.M. No. 2271-MJ September 18, 1981 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ v. SEGUNDO M. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-36208 September 18, 1981 - AMBO ALILAYA v. MARCELA DE ESPAÑOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56532 September 21, 1981 - CUSTODIO O. PARLADE v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2234-MJ September 25, 1981 - BERNARDO O. LAMBOLOTO v. ZACARIAS Y. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-32853 September 25, 1981 - JUAN S. BARRERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-56656-60 September 25, 1981 - MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION v. MARCELO STEEL WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1648 September 26, 1981 - PABLITO IBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO R. VIÑA

  • G.R. No. L-52413 September 26, 1981 - MELITON C. GERONIMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1646 September 30, 1981 - MARIO HERNANDEZ v. SERGIO VILLAREAL

  • A.M. No. 1733-CFI September 30, 1981 - IRENEO CABREANA, ET AL. v. CELSO AVELINO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2089 September 30, 1981 - FELBET’S TIMBER, INC., ET AL. v. GLICERIO LUMUTHANG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2374 September 30, 1981 - VIRGILIO SURIGAO v. MARINO V. CACHERO

  • G.R. No. L-27042 September 30, 1981 - JOVENCIO CONCHA, ET AL. v. JOSE C. DIVINAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27761 September 30, 1981 - BISIG NG MANGGAGAWA NG PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-33358 September 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACTAN PEÑARANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38068 September 30, 1981 - ELISA O. GAMBOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38674 September 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO REGULAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46892 September 30, 1981 - HEIRS OF AMPARO DEL ROSARIO v. AURORA O. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47011 September 30, 1981 - FEATI BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50555 September 30, 1981 - BARANGA MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT CORPORATION v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52237 September 30, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO V. LAGTU

  • G.R. No. L-54097 September 30, 1981 - ROMEO N. GUMBA v. JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56133 September 30, 1981 - ANTONIO ESTABAYA v. PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, ET AL.