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
 

   
September-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137538 September 3, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. HON. FRANCISCO B. IBAY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1249 September 4, 2001 - PHIL. GERIATRICS FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1373 September 4, 2001 - ELIZABETH A. TIONGCO v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1501 September 4, 2001 - JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO v. ALBERT S. SALAMAT

  • A.M. No. P-01-1502 September 4, 2001 - CRESENCIO N. BONGALOS v. JOSE R. MONUNGOLH and VICTORIA D. JAMITO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1357 September 4, 2001 - SHERWIN M. BALOLOY v. JOSE B. FLORES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1651 September 4, 2001 - PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO v. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN

  • G.R. No. 125359 September 4, 2001 - ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO and HECTOR T. RIVERA v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 126859 September 4, 2001 - YOUSEF AL-GHOUL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127181 September 4, 2001 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132709 September 4, 2001 - CAMILO L. SABIO, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134490 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL BRAGAT

  • G.R. Nos. 135356-58 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO SAGARINO

  • G.R. No. 138923 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA AYOLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1344 September 5, 2001 - LYDIO ARCILLA, ET AL. v. LUCIO PALAYPAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128145 September 5, 2001 - J.C. LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133886 September 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR PARBA

  • G.R. No. 134101 September 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELINO O. LLANITA

  • G.R. No. 136054 September 5, 2001 - SEVERINA SAN MIGUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132714 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 139064-66 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ARCE

  • G.R. No. 140529 September 6, 2001 - JOSE P. LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141400 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVANGELINE GANENAS

  • Admin. Case. No. 4863 September 7, 2001 - URBAN BANK v. ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 114858-59 September 7, 2001 - COLUMBUS PHILIPPINES BUS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 126352 September 7, 2001 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127261 September 7, 2001 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129644 September 7, 2001 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131805 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO HERMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132064 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI BAYENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132320 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO OJERIO

  • G.R. Nos. 135402-03 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IAN GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 136779 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL ASUNCION

  • G.R. No. 142065 September 7, 2001 - LENIDO LUMANOG v. HON. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 142875 September 7, 2001 - EDGAR AGUSTILO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144877 September 7, 2001 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. VERONICA AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1506 September 10, 2001 - GEORGE S. BICBIC v. DHALIA E. BORROMEO

  • G.R. Nos. 104769 & 135016 September 10, 2001 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118943 September 10, 2001 - MARIO HORNALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130362 September 10, 2001 - INT’L FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES (PHIL.) v. MERLIN J. ARGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138485 September 10, 2001 - DR. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 141970 September 10, 2001 - METROPOLITAN BANK v. FLORO T. ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 145588 September 10, 2001 - ESPERIDION LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140398 September 11, 2001 - FRANCISCO DELA MERCED, ET AL. v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121877 September 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ERLINDA GONZALES

  • G.R. Nos. 138431-36 September 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORA M. ARABIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140903 September 12, 2001 - HENRY SY v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC September 13, 2001 - RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A.M. No. 00-4-188-RTC September 13, 2001 - REQUEST OF MR. OSCAR T. LLAMAS FOR RE-ASSIGNMENT OSCAR T. LLAMAS v. EMMANUEL LACANDOLA AND ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 120009 September 13, 2001 - DOLE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 122095 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO DAWISAN

  • G.R. No. 127913 September 13, 2001 - RCBC v. METRO CONTAINER CORP.

  • G.R. No. 132354 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOMEDES IGLESIA

  • G.R. Nos. 136840-42 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 137250-51 September 13, 2001 - PABLO MARGAREJO v. HON. ADELARDO ESCOSES

  • G.R. No. 138972-73 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140512 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER PELERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142043 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON BITUON

  • G.R. No. 142430 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE QUINICIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142444 September 13, 2001 - OFELIA D. ARTUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142649 September 13, 2001 - ANTONIO C. SAN LUIS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143702 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 129212 September 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO LACUESTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1575 September 17, 2001 - ISAGANI RIZON v. JUDGE OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. RTJ 99-1498 September 17, 2001 - VICENTE P. LIM v. JUDGE JACINTA B. TAMBAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111584 September 17, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES SALVADOR Y. CHUA and EMILIA U. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 135644 September 17, 2001 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SPOUSES GONZALO and MATILDE LABUNG-DEANG

  • G.R. No. 135912 September 17, 2001 - ODIN SECURITY AGENCY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138219 September 17, 2001 - GERARDO V. TAMBAOAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138943-44 September 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY ALMAZAN

  • G.R. No. 141209 September 17, 2001 - ANTONIA HUFANA, ET AL. v. WILLIAM ONG GENATO

  • A. C. No. 5043 September 19, 2001 - ABEDIN L. OSOP v. ATTY. V. EMMANUEL C. FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. 135936 September 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR alias "GOLING"

  • G.R. No. 144400 September 19, 2001 - DOMINGO O. IGNACIO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1369 September 20, 2001 - GUILLERMA D. CABAÑERO v. JUDGE ANTONIO K. CAÑON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1371 September 20, 2001 - ATTY. NESCITO C. HILARIO v. JUDGE ROMEO A. QUILANTANG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1472 September 20, 2001 - SPOUSES HERMINIO, ET Al. v. HON. DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG

  • A.M. No. P-01-1483 September 20, 2001 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. ISABELO LAVADIA

  • G.R. No. 116938 September 20, 2001 - LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA v. REMEDIOS A. AMOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127405 September 20, 2001 - MARJORIE TOCAO and WILLIAM T. BELO v. COURT OF APPEALS and NENITA A. ANAY

  • G.R. No. 130399 September 20, 2001 - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT v. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA

  • G.R. Nos. 135068-72 September 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 137674 September 20, 2001 - WILLIAM GO KIM HUY v. SANTIAGO GO KIM HUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139410 September 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SILVERIO AGUERO

  • G.R. No. 140898 September 20, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ISHIKAWA AMBA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1289 September 21, 2001 - JUDGE NAPOLEON S. DIAMANTE v. ANTHONY A. ALAMBRA

  • G.R. Nos. 119609-10 September 21, 2001 - PCGG v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128876 September 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANOLITO FELIZAR y CAPULI

  • G.R. No. 132384 September 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARLON GADIA

  • G.R. No. 134596 September 21, 2001 - RAYMUND ARDONIO v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 142889 September 21, 2001 - EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 145416 September 21, 2001 - GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION v. SY CHUAN

  • A.M. No. 99-6-79-MTC September 24, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

  • A.M. No. P-01-1512 September 24, 2001 - TERESITA H. ZIPAGAN v. JOVENCIO N. TATTAO

  • G.R. Nos. 132442-44 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNARDINO ARANZADO

  • G.R. Nos. 135524-25 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANOLITO AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 141897 September 24, 2001 - METRO CONSTRUCTION v. CHATHAM PROPERTIES

  • G.R. No. 144404 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEODEGARIO BASCUGUIN Y AGQUIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 127759-60 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO

  • G.R. Nos. 134527-28 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SERAPIO REY alias APIONG

  • G.R. Nos. 136867-68 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO GALVEZ y JEREZ

  • G.R. No. 137612 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO ANTINERO BERIARMENTE

  • A.C. No. 4497 September 26, 2001 - MR. and MRS. VENUSTIANO G. SABURNIDO v. ATTY. FLORANTE E. MADROÑO

  • A.C. No. 4990 September 26, 2001 - ELENA ZARATE-BUSTAMANTE and LEONORA SAVET CATABIAN v. ATTY. FLORENTINO G. LIBATIQUE

  • G.R. No. 122824 September 26, 2001 - AURORA F. IGNACIO v. VALERIANO BASILIO,

  • G.R. No. 123058 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NAPUD, JR.

  • G.R. No. 129107 September 26, 2001 - ALFONSO L. IRINGAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS , ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129530-31 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILFREDO OLARTE

  • G.R. Nos. 138308-10 September 26, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142564 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HILGEM NERIO y GIGANTO

  • G.R. Nos. 143108-09 September 26, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Case. No. 5505 September 27, 2001 - SEVERINO RAMOS v. ATTY. ELLIS JACOBA and ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO JACOBA

  • G.R. No. 131864-65 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN and JOSE PRECIOSO

  • G.R. Nos. 134963-64 September 27, 2001 - ALFREDO LONG and FELIX ALMERIA v. LYDIA BASA

  • G.R. No. 137676 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ATTY. ROBERTO DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. 144035 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE M. BASQUEZ

  • A.M. No. P-00-1391 September 28, 2001 - LIBRADA D. TORRES v. NELSON C. CABESUELA

  • G.R. No. 122425 September 28, 2001 - FLORDELIZA H. CABUHAT v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 124535 September 28, 2001 - THE RURAL BANK OF LIPA CITY, ET AL. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125154 September 28, 2001 - DIGNA VERGEL v. COURT OF APPEALS and DOROTEA-TAMISIN GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 125442 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO ARELLANO y ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 127232 September 28, 2001 - GOLDENROD v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PATHFINDER HOLDINGS (PHILIPPINES)

  • G.R. No. 127241 September 28, 2001 - LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NLRC , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134128 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERARDO DE LAS ERAS y ZAFRA

  • G.R. No. 134928 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FILOMENO BARNUEVO. ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140789-92 September 28, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIPIO CARBONELL and DIONISIO CARBONELL

  • G.R. No. 145371 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BEN AQUINO and ROMEO AQUINO

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. P-01-1501   September 4, 2001 - JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO v. ALBERT S. SALAMAT

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [A.M.-P-No. 01-1501. September 4, 2001.]

    JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO, Complainant, v. ALBERT S. SALAMAT, Sheriff IV, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    This Court shall never tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary. However, when an administrative charge against a court personnel holds no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court employee against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Case


    In a sworn Letter-Complaint 1 dated May 17, 1999, addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Josephine D. Sarmiento instituted an administrative Complaint against Alberto S. Salamat, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 80 of Malolos, Bulacan. She alleged that respondent failed to execute the Writ of Demolition 2 issued by Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag of the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 297-95 entitled "Benjamin U. Refugio v. Josephine D. Sarmiento, et. al."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Ironically, in the aforesaid civil case, complainant was the defendant against whom the Writ of Demolition was issued. In an uncommon and unlikely scenario, she faulted respondent for allegedly failing to implement or execute the said Writ, which was directed at the premises where she was residing. Incidentally, a Notice to Vacate 3 had already been issued against her, yet she continued to defy the judicial Order and insisted that respondent should proceed with the demolition of the premises.

    Although this administrative Complaint is obviously unmeritorious, the Court has resolved to issue this Decision. It has done, if only to show that even in the handling of administrative cases, it is fair to all including its own employees. This action will also respond to some criticisms that administrative decisions of this Court are always tilted against its personnel. 4

    The Facts


    The facts as alleged by complainant in her Complaint-Affidavit 5 are narrated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That we are the defendants in Civil Case No. 297-95 for Illegal Detainer, entitled BENJAMIN REFUGIO versus JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO, et. al., of the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan;

    "2. That on 07 April 1999, we received a WRIT OF DEMOLITION dated 09 March 1999 issued by Hon. Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag of the aforesaid Court and a NOTICE thereof was issued by ALBERT S. SALAMAT, Deputy Sheriff, Malolos, Bulacan;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    x       x       x


    "4. That the NOTICE TO VACATE attached to the Writ of Demolition received on 07 April 1999, stated that the Writ [would be] executed within five (5) days inclusive of its receipt which [fell] on 11 April 1999. Xerox copy of the NOTICE TO VACATE is hereto attached and made and integral part hereof as Annex ‘B’;

    "5. That on 11 April 1999 until the present the Writ of Demolition on the above described lot was not executed by Deputy Sheriff Albert S. Salamat of Malolos, Bulacan;

    "6. That on 28 April 1999, defendant JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO filed a formal request with the Honorable Supreme Court that the Writ of Demolition (Annex ‘A’) be executed by Deputy Sheriff ALBERT S. SALAMAT[;] however, the said WRIT OF DEMOLITION has not been executed until the present and its 60-day lifetime expired on 10 May 1999. Xerox copy of the formal request is hereto attached and made [an] integral part hereof and marked as Annex ‘C’;

    "7. That we are executing this Affidavit in order to lodge [an] Administrative Complaint against Deputy Sheriff ALBERT S. SALAMAT of Malolos, Bulacan, for not having executed the WRIT OF DEMOLITION (Annex ‘A’) dated 09 March 1999 until it expired on 10 May 1999 even [if] he notified the herein defendants that the aforesaid WRIT [would] be executed on 11 April 1999;

    x       x       x." 6

    In his Comment, 7 respondent denies the charges against him and explains that the delay and the failure to implement the Writ of Demolition are the fault of Benjamin Refugio, the plaintiff in the subject civil case. He also speculates on complainant’s motive, adding that it is quite ironic that the defendant, who stands to be prejudiced by the execution of the Writ, should be the one interested in the execution thereof. Respondent relates the factual incidents of the case in this manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That the aforesaid Writ of Demolition [was] received by our Office on March 19, 1999 and on April 7, 1999, upon the instance of plaintiff Benjamin Refugio, who only talked with the undersigned by phone[;] the Notice of Demolition/Notice to Vacate was personally served by the undersigned to defendant Josephine Sarmiento and all persons claiming rights under her/residing at the premises subject matter of the above-captioned case for demolition and thereby gave notice to defendants to peacefully and voluntarily vacate the premises subject of demolition within five (5) days upon receipt of the said Notice[;] otherwise, the Writ of Demolition [would] be enforced by the undersigned;

    "That it was agreed upon by the plaintiff and the undersigned that he, plaintiff Refugio, [would] be the one to provide the undersigned with the logistics needed in the implementation of the aforesaid Writ of Demolition (re: Demolition Crew, Transportation, food/meals) together with the police assistance if so required if the defendants fail[ed] to voluntarily and peacefully vacate the premises subject of demolition after the five (5) day Notice expire[d] considering that the undersigned [could] not by himself alone, demolish the concrete structures the defendants ha[d] erected at the premises subject of demolition. It will be noted that the Office of the Provincial Sheriff ha[d] its own contractual demolition crew and it was offered by the undersigned to plaintiff to handle the task of demolition but the plaintiff insisted that he ha[d] his own demolition crew that he [could] bring during the implementation of the aforesaid writ of demolition;

    "That after the five day notice expired, the undersigned was contacted by plaintiff Refugio, again only by phone, [who] relayed to the undersigned that the defendants [had] refused and still refuse[d] to vacate the said premises subject of demolition voluntarily up to this date;

    "That in view of the earlier agreement between the undersigned and plaintiff Refugio, that he, plaintiff Refugio [would] be the one to provide the logistics needed/agreed upon, the undersigned told plaintiff Refugio to start consolidating the services of his demolition crew and to notify the undersigned as well whenever he, plaintiff Refugio, ha[d] already prepared his own demolition crew so that the date of demolition m[a]y be set for implementation since the undersigned [would] not carry the burden of the hiring and organizing of the demolition crew;

    "That up to this date, plaintiff Refugio failed to inform the undersigned and even failed to see the undersigned personally even for purposes of coordination with regards to the setting of the date of the implementation of the writ of demolition which the undersigned [found] very unusual on the part of plaintiff Refugio, who should be the one to be interested [in]/insistent [on] the [implementation of the] writ of demolition . . . [at] the soonest possible time and not defendant Josephine Sarmiento, who [was] the one complaining to this good Office on the non-implementation of the aforesaid writ of demolition;

    "That it [was] also ironical on the person of defendant Josephine Sarmiento to complain o[f] the non-implementation of the writ of demolition since she, defendant Sarmiento, [was] the losing party in this particular case and how come . . . she, defendant Sarmiento, [was] the one interested/insistent to have her house demolished?

    "That if so ever . . . the undersigned [was] remiss in his duties and responsibilities as a deputy sheriff with regards to this case, it should be plaintiff Refugio, who is the prevailing party [who should] be the one to complain since it [would] be prejudicial [to] him if ever the undersigned [was] really the one at fault in the non-implementation of the aforesaid writ of demolition;" 8

    Recommendation of the OCA

    In its Report and Recommendation, 9 the OCA found the administrative Complaint baseless. Exculpating respondent from any administrative liability, it discussed the matter as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "EVALUATION: The complaint against the respondent is devoid of merit. Perusal of the records of the case reveal[s] that the non-implementation of the writ of demolition is not attributable to the respondent but to the plaintiff. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘. . . [I]n 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 an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such 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 submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.’chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In this case, the plaintiff seem[ed] to be not interested in the implementation of the writ of demolition considering that he [was] the one prejudiced. It should be noted that the respondent and the plaintiff made an arrangement/agreement that the latter should provide for a demolition team plus the expenses to be incurred in implementing the writ of demolition but to no avail. Thus, the respondent sheriff should not be faulted [for] the non-implementation of said writ.

    RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the complaint against respondent Sheriff Albert S. Salamat of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Malolos, Bulacan be DISMISSED for lack of merit." 10

    The Court’s Ruling


    We agree with the recommendation of the OCA.

    Respondent’s Administrative Liability

    A review of the records of the case clearly shows that the administrative Complaint does not contain any material allegation that would indicate any liability on the part of respondent sheriff. In administrative proceedings, the complainants have the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in their complaints. 11 In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the sheriffs have regularly performed their official duties. 12

    Non-Implementation of the

    Writ Was Caused by Plaintiff’s

    Own Inaction

    When writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute such writs in accordance with their mandate. 13 However, when party-litigants, in whose favor the writs have been issued, frustrate the efforts of the sheriffs to implement those writs, the latter are relieved from such duty and incur no administrative liability therefor.

    Under the facts, it appears that respondent sheriff was ready to undertake the demolition by offering to the plaintiff the services of the demolition crew of the Office of the Provincial Sheriff. The plaintiff refused to proceed with the demolition, insisting that he would use his own demolition crew, to whom he would provide the necessary logistics to carry out the Writ under the supervision of Respondent. Even after the filing of this administrative case, the former has not coordinated with the latter as to the manner in which the Writ of Demolition could be effected.

    To be sure, respondent cannot be faulted for the non-implementation of the Writ, considering that the plaintiff himself has shown listlessness or lack of interest in the execution thereof. As correctly pointed out by the OCA, the Rules 14 provide that the party requesting the execution of a writ or process "shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process." Accordingly, respondent sheriff was not obliged to proceed with the implementation of the Writ, considering that the expenses had not yet been advanced to him. Certainly, he could not be expected to shoulder personally the demolition expenses, which should be borne by the plaintiff.

    Complainant Has

    No Cause of Action and

    Is Not the Proper Party

    A cause of action is an act or an omission of one party in violation of the legal rights of another 15 and only arises at the moment such rights have been transgressed. 16 Accordingly, an action shall be prosecuted in the name of the party, who by law is entitled to the right to be enforced. 17 In this case, complainant cannot claim to be a party whose right has been violated by the sheriff’s inaction or non-implementation of the Writ of Demolition. As a matter of fact, the suspended action on the Writ was beneficial to her, because she continued to remain in possession of the subject premises despite the trial court’s unfavorable judgment against her.

    Indeed, complainant may not, under the circumstances, take the cudgels for and in behalf of the proper party entitled to file and prosecute an administrative complaint. Even assuming arguendo that complainant is the proper party, the allegations and the evidence presented in support of that assumption do not constitute, on the part of respondent, any culpable act or omission that would warrant administrative sanctions.

    As to why complainant is so determined to effect the demolition of the subject premises can only be a subject for speculation. something the Court is not inclined to do.

    Let it be known that this Court will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary. 18 However, when an administrative charge against a court personnel holds no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court employee against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes.

    As a final note, this Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. 19

    WHEREFORE, the administrative Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, with a warning to complainant to be more circumspect in filing administrative cases against innocent people.

    SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Melo, Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 1.

    2. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

    3. Rollo, p. 6.

    4. In fact, this Court in a Minute Resolution dated January 15, 2001 already adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to dismiss the Complaint.

    5. Rollo, pp. 2-3.

    6. Ibid.

    7. Rollo, pp. 9-10.

    8. Ibid.

    9. Rollo, pp. 11-12.

    10. Ibid.

    11. Lorena v. Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632, February 8, 1999; Cortes v. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423, August 20, 1998.

    12. Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA 354, October 8, 1998.

    13. Mamanteo v. Magumun, 311 SCRA 259, July 28, 1999.

    14. Rule 141, 9.

    15. Leberman Realty Corporation v. Typingco, 293 SCRA 316, July 29, 1998; Bachrach Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 487, September 25, 1998.

    16. Delos Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 81, January 27, 1998.

    17. Uy v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 69, September 9, 1999.

    18. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit, RTC Br. 117, Pasay City, 291 SCRA 1, June 18, 1998.

    19. Francisco v. Leyva, 304 SCRA 365, March 10, 1999.

    A.M. No. P-01-1501   September 4, 2001 - JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO v. ALBERT S. SALAMAT


    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