ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1188 July 2, 2001 - JOSE E. GURAY v. FABIAN M. BAUTISTA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1481 July 5, 2001 - RCBC v. NOEL V. QUILANTANG

  • G.R. No. 135199 July 5, 2001 - CRISOSTOMO MAGAT, ET AL. v. ALBERT M. DELIZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141285 July 5, 2001 - CEBU INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, ET AL. v. CEBU INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE EMPLOYEES’ UNION

  • G.R. No. 141947 July 5, 2001 - ISMAEL V. SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144275 July 5, 2001 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC July 6, 2001 - RE: FERDINAND J. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 132318 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO F. MUERONG

  • G.R. No. 134114 July 6, 2001 - NESTLE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134779 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON FLORAGUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137608-09 July 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO TAGANNA

  • G.R. No. 143375 July 6, 2001 - RUTH D. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131856-57 July 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM MONTINOLA

  • G.R. Nos. 85494, 85496 & 195071 July 10, 2001 - CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126166 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ALLAN TEJADA

  • G.R. No. 133928 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECESARIO HIJAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136267 July 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL ABRENICA CUBCUBIN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 142801-802 July 10, 2001 - BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1253 July 11, 2001 - KIAT REAPORT, ET AL. v. EFREN S. MARIANO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1452 July 11, 2001 - FERMA C. PORTIC v. MARIO B. LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. P-01-1479 July 11, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RUBEN B. ALBAYTAR

  • G.R. No. 104802 July 11, 2001 - AURELIA S. LLANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108301 & 132539 July 11, 2001 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108346 July 11, 2001 - MARIANO Z. VELARDE, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135210 July 11, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ISABELA CULTURAL CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137050 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE CORTES

  • G.R. No. 137891 July 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS PATRIARCA

  • G.R. No. 140365 July 11, 2001 - CESAR P. UY, ET AL v. VICTORINO P. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140974 July 11, 2001 - RAMON ORO v. GERARDO D. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349 July 12, 2001 - BERNADETTE MONDEJAR v. MARINO S. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 101974 July 12, 2001 - VICTORIA P. CABRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102313 July 12, 2001 - R. F. NAVARRO & CO. v. FORTUNATO A. VAILOCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102696, 102716, 108257 & 120954 July 12, 2001 - ALBERTO LOOYUKO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104223 July 12, 2001 - TIBURCIO SAMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104383 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO AMESTUZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112590 July 12, 2001 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 July 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO D. MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 138737 July 12, 2001 - FINMAN GEN. ASSURANCE CORP., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138576-77 July 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY JACOB

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1322 July 17, 2001 - RENATO H. SANCHEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1484 July 17, 2001 - JOSE R. ASTORGA v. NICOLASITO S. SOLAS

  • G.R. Nos. 103550 & 103551 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROMERICO PORRAS

  • G.R. No. 133814 July 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES ORTIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 134540-41 July 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. DIONISIO BATALLER

  • G.R. Nos. 109559 & 109581 July 19, 2001 - BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111535 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CAMPOS

  • G.R. Nos. 113255-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO S. GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 125698 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO E. HAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128153-56 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. BUISON

  • G.R. No. 131216 July 19, 2001 - LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132177 July 19, 2001 - JOSE F. CAOIBES v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133190 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS LOR

  • G.R. No. 135145 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMOND G. MAXION

  • G.R. No. 137545 July 19, 2001 - TERESITA D. GAITE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139789 July 19, 2001 - POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO BILDNER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139967 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL TALAVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 141011 & 141028 July 19, 2001 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORP. v. ISAGANI C. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 144179 July 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMSHAND C. THAMSEY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350 July 20, 2001 - LORENZO PASCUAL, ET AL. v. CESAR M. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 110263 July 20, 2001 - ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117187 July 20, 2001 - UNION MOTOR CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120176 July 20, 2001 - MA. VALENTINA SANTANA-CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124442 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO S. COMPACION

  • G.R. No. 132926 July 20, 2001 - ELVIRA AGULLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133580 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO GENEBLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 135030-33 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERCY LOGAN

  • G.R. No. 135666 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 135865 July 20, 2001 - NAGKAKAISANG KAPISANAN KAPITBAHAYAN SA COMMONWEALTH AVE. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138501 July 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. LAXA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139150 July 20, 2001 - PABLO DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142024 July 20, 2001 - GUILLERMO SARABIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 145838 July 20, 2001 - NICASIO I. ALCANTARA v. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146079 July 20, 2001 - KANEMITSU YAMAOKA v. PESCARICH MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1564 July 26, 2001 - MARISSA M. GORDON, ET AL. v. FRISCO T. LILAGAN

  • G.R. Nos. 132325-26 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 133225 July 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN CONCEPCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113176 & 113342 July 30, 2001 - HANIL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. P-00-1381 & A.M. No. P-00-1382 July 31, 2001 - EFREN B. MALLARE v. RONALD ALLAN A. FERRY

  • G.R. No. 105647 July 31, 2001 - ERNESTO BIONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121298 & 122123 July 31, 2001 - GENARO RUIZ, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129329 July 31, 2001 - ESTER M. ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130707 July 31, 2001 - VERONICA ROBLE, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR ARBASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134634 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO CLARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134831-32 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON N. LOGMAO

  • G.R. Nos. 136827 & 136799 July 31, 2001 - SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL. v. TROPICAL HOMES

  • G.R. No. 136847 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODULFO P. VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138289 July 31, 2001 - GRACIANO PALELE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139180 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 139529 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO BRACERO

  • G.R. No. 139622 July 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PERRERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142616 July 31, 2001 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. RITRATTO GROUP INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143687 July 31, 2001 - RAMON ESTANISLAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144702 July 31, 2001 - U.I.C. ET AL. v. U.I.C. TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145389 July 31, 2001 - ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL. v. RONNIE C. SILVESTRE

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. P-01-1481   July 5, 2001 - RCBC v. NOEL V. QUILANTANG

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. P-01-1481. July 5, 2001.]

    (OCA I.P.I. No. 98-447-P)

    RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Complainant, v. NOEL V. QUILANTANG, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 53, Bacolod City, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    This is an administrative complaint against respondent Noel V. Quilantang, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 53, Bacolod City, filed on 30 April 1998 by Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) for Grave Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty, Gross Incompetence, Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Specifically, complainant RCBC alleged that respondent failed to implement a writ of preliminary attachment issued on 10 February 1998 in Civil Case No. 98-10141 1 of the RTC-Br. 51, Bacolod City, notwithstanding the fact that respondent had demanded and was given P7,000.00 purportedly for expenses in the implementation of the writ; that said amount was never deposited with the Clerk of Court nor liquidated; that contrary to what respondent stated in his Sheriff’s Partial Return of Service dated 5 March 1998 respondent failed to attach a lot registered in the name of the defendants or to take possession of their Honda Civic car; that as a consequence of such neglect of duty and incompetence the defendants succeeded in transferring their land to a third party on 2 March 1998; and, that the money judgment eventually rendered in favor of complainant was reduced to a mere empty victory as the defendants changed residence and could no longer be located. 2

    In his Answer dated 1 September 1998 respondent alleged that he faithfully complied with his duty to implement the subject writ of preliminary attachment as evident from a copy of the Notice of Embargo which clearly showed on its face that it was entered in the Day Book of the City Register of Deeds of Bacolod City at 9:25 in the morning of 24 February 1998 and assigned Entry No. 237100; 3 that if ever the defendants succeeded in transferring their property to third persons, it was not his fault but rather that of the City Registrar of Deeds for failing to annotate at the back of the TCT the Notice of Embargo duly served upon her; that he did not take possession of the Honda Civic registered in the name of the defendants because he was informed that the car had already been sold to a third person as early as 2 January 1998; and, that he did not deposit the P7,000.00 received from the complainant for expenses in the implementation of the writ because it was the usual practice among sheriffs of the RTC-Bacolod City not to do so since such money might be needed anytime as opportunities for implementation would arise.

    In its Reply to the foregoing Answer complainant RCBC alleged that the City Registrar of Deeds was not able to annotate the Notice of Embargo served on 24 February 1998 because it was not respondent who served the notice but a certain "R. Talisa" who did not leave a copy thereof for annotation. Complainant alleged that respondent himself brought a copy of the notice to the City Registrar of Deeds only when subject land had already been transferred to a third person and the certificate of title in the name of the defendants already cancelled.

    On 22 November 2000 we referred this case to the Executive Judge, RTC-Bacolod City, for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings were conducted on 29 January and 22 February 2001 during which respondent, though represented by counsel, failed to appear and to present his evidence despite due and repeated notices.

    On 26 March 2001 Executive Judge Edgar G. Garvilles submitted his Investigation Report dated 7 March 2001 finding respondent guilty as charged and recommending his suspension for six (6) months.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We adopt the findings of the Investigating Judge except for the penalty imposed which we here modify as may be warranted by the circumstances.

    The rule is that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff it is his duty to proceed with reasonable promptitude to execute it pursuant to its mandate. 4 His duty to do so is ministerial and not directory, 5 and one which he must accomplish as early as possible. 6 Specifically, Sec. 5, Rule 57, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that the sheriff shall enforce the writ of preliminary attachment without delay and with all reasonable diligence.

    In the instant case the writ of preliminary attachment issued in favor of complainant RCBC was by virtue of an Order dated 10 February 1998 of Judge Ramon B. Posadas, RTC-Br. 51, Bacolod City. The Notice of Embargo issued pursuant thereto by Atty. Ildefonso M. Villanueva, Jr., Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, RTC-Bacolod City, and addressed to the City Registrar of Deeds was dated 23 February 1998. The duty to implement the writ of attachment and to serve the Notice of Embargo was entrusted to respondent as Sheriff of Branch 53 because the Sheriff of Branch 51 was on sick leave.

    Although the Notice of Embargo was indeed served on the Office of the City Registrar of Deeds on 24 February 1998 as claimed by respondent in his Sheriff’s Partial Return of Service dated 5 March 1998, it was not respondent himself who served the notice but a certain "R. Talisa" to whom respondent apparently delegated the task. However "R. Talisa" proved completely ignorant of the procedure for the effective annotation of a Notice of Embargo on a certificate of title observed in the Office of the City Registrar of Deeds. As a consequence the Notice of Embargo, which was ineffectively served, was not annotated at the back of TCT No. 167358 in the name of the defendants. Atty. Milagros de la Cruz, Acting City Registrar of Deeds of Bacolod City, expounded on the blunder —

    [O]n February 24, 1998, her office received a "notice of embargo" (Exh. "A") in Civil Case 98-10141 entitled RCBC v. Sps. Rodrigo Legaspi, Jr. and Mary Jane Legaspi. Upon receipt of the document, the Entry Clerk wrote thereon Entry No. "237100 2-24-98 9:25," (Exh. "A-1"). The presentor of the document, per the office record, was a certain "R. Talisa" who is neither connected with the Office of the Register of Deeds nor with the Office of the Provincial Sheriff. The notice of embargo was not annotated at the back of TCT 16737 (sic) because after the notice was presented to the Entry Clerk for logging in the Entry Book, the presentor who was required to pay the necessary fees to the cashier did not come back to the Entry Clerk for the necessary receipt. Upon submission of the OR, the Entry Clerk should have "annotated" the notice of embargo at the back of the title and the title with the annotation should have been forwarded to her as Register of Deeds for signature. But in this particular case, no title with annotation of the notice of embargo was brought to her office for her signature . . . When Quilantang for the first time personally brought the notice of embargo to her office on March 2, 1998, she denied the request for annotation at the back of the title because the (sic) TCT No. 167358 was no longer in the name of Sps. Rodrigo and Mary Jane Legaspi since it was already cancelled and the same was already transferred to another party, Mrs. Imelda Precion, on a deed of sale also dated March 2, 1998. The notice of embargo was brought by Quilantang to the office after the transfer of the title to Precion. 7

    As a result of respondent’s gross neglect of duty in entrusting the service of the Notice of Embargo to someone who was neither connected with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City nor with the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental and therefore was not conversant with established procedure, the defendants succeeded in transferring their property clandestinely to a third person to the damage and prejudice of complainant. Respondent compounded his infraction by falsely representing in his Sheriff’s Partial Return of Service dated 5 March 1998 that he was able to attach defendants’ property notwithstanding the fact that he knew very well that the attempted annotation on 24 February 1998 was incomplete and ineffectual, and that annotation was eventually refused by the Registrar of Deeds when he himself requested it on 2 March 1998 for the reason that subject property had already been sold to a third person. Although no sufficient evidence exists to prove that respondent was in collusion with the defendants, although we do not discount such possibility, we hold him liable nonetheless for such serious neglect of duty and gross dishonesty.

    We also take note of the fact that respondent had requested and admittedly received the amount of P7,000.00 from the complainant on different dates purportedly for expenses in the implementation of the writ. However, Sec. 9, par. (c), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court merely authorizes a sheriff’s legal fee of P50.00 for executing a writ of attachment. 8 Although additional sums may be required from the party requesting the writ certain steps have to be followed first as may be evident hereunder —

    In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges, in such amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit said amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor (Emphasis supplied).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Clearly, the steps that have to be followed before additional sums may be required are: first, the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him; second, he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; third, the approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-officio sheriff; fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and fifth, the executing sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ. Any portion of the amounts received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction which makes him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. 9

    A sheriff cannot just unilaterally and repeatedly demand sums of money from a party-litigant, as respondent herein did, without observing the foregoing steps, otherwise, it would amount to dishonesty and extortion. 10 In fact even "reasonableness" of the amounts charged, collected and received by the sheriff is not a defense where the procedure laid down in Sec. 9, Rule 141, of the Rules of Court has been clearly ignored. 11

    Respondent in the instant case did not even explain or give an accounting of the P7,000.00 which he himself admitted having received from complainant RCBC. When presented the opportunity to do so during the investigation, respondent who was fully notified and represented by counsel, absolutely failed to present any evidence whatsoever to exculpate himself.

    In Lim v. Guasch 12 we dismissed a sheriff for grave misconduct and gross negligence in the performance of his duties for demanding and receiving unauthorized sums of money totalling P700.00 from a party-litigant, and for failing to attend an auction sale he himself had scheduled, thus enabling the judgment debtors to run away with properties supposed to have been sold at the sale. We can do no less in the case of Respondent. Moreover we take note of the fact that respondent had been absent without official leave (AWOL) since December 1999 and had been recommended for separation or "dropping" from the rolls. 13 Respondent’s absence without official leave during the investigation of the administrative case against him is indicative of his guilt in the same way that flight in criminal cases creates the presumption of guilt. 14

    WHEREFORE, for Gross Neglect of Duty amounting to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Inefficiency, Incompetence, Grave Misconduct and Gross Dishonesty, as well as absence without leave since December 1999, respondent Noel V. Quilantang, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 53, Bacolod City, is DISMISSED from the service with FORFEITURE of all benefits and with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

    This Decision is immediately executory.

    SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Pardo, Buena, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Panganiban, Quisumbing, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. "Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Sps. Rodrigo Legaspi, Jr., and Mary Jane Legaspi" for collection of sum of money with prayer for writ of preliminary attachment.

    2. Manifestation dated 23 November 1998.

    3. Exh. "A" and "A-1" .

    4. Balantes v. Ocampo III, A.M. Nos. MTJ-93-853 and P-94-1013, 14 March 1995, 242 SCRA 327, 331.

    5. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Torio, A.M. No. P-98-1260, 14 January 1998, 284 SCRA 67, 74.

    6. Vda. de Tisado v. Tablizo, A.M. No. P-94-1025, 20 February 1996, 253 SCRA 646, 652.

    7. Report dated 7 March 2001 by Executive Judge Edgar G. Garvilles, RTC, Bacolod City.

    8. Increased to P60.00 effective 1 March 2000 per amendment introduced Resolution dated 14 September 1999 in A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC.

    9. Florendo v. Enrile, A.M. No. P-92-695, 7 December 1994, 239 SCRA 22, 30.

    10. Ong v. Meregildo, A.M. No. P-93-935, 5 July 1994, 233 SCRA 632.

    11. Ibid.

    12. A.M. No. R-711-P, 29 June 1993, 223 SCRA 756.

    13. A.M. No. 00-10-457-RTC Re: Absence without Official Leave (AWOL) of Mr. Noel v. Quilantang.

    14. Casal v. Concepcion, Jr., A.M. No. P-93-942, 6 April 1995, 243 SCRA 369, 373.

    A.M. No. P-01-1481   July 5, 2001 - RCBC v. NOEL V. QUILANTANG


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED